Debates of Oct. 18th, 1995

The House resumed from June 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Endangered And Threatened Species Act

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak on Bill C-275.

The fundamental goal of any endangered species legislation must be to ensure-

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As a member of the government I should have the privilege of speaking first on this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member will appreciate that there is no automatic order to the government side's speaking on a private member's bill. I understand that a government member spoke last and therefore it is now the Reform Party's turn.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I was saying, the fundamental goal of any endangered species legislation must be to ensure that no further native species go extinct and that already endangered species recover to healthy and self-sustaining levels. To do this we need to use the most effective, efficient and fair methods possible.

The federal government has jurisdiction over the management and preservation of wildlife on federal lands. Likewise, the provincial governments have jurisdiction over the management and preservation on all non-federal lands.

I understand that currently only four provinces have endangered species legislation: Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick.

Farmers and ranchers in Saskatchewan are concerned this type of legislation will prevent them from doing what they want with their own land. They are afraid governments will annex part of their land if an endangered species makes its habitat on their property. Farmers and ranchers are not against the protection of endangered species and populations. Farm owners, landowners and land leasers are respectful of our duty to protect all species with which we share this planet.

Any legislation must first consider the rights of the private landowner. By considering their rights we will then be able to find a co-operative solution to the preservation of endangered species.

My constituents who are farmers and ranchers certainly do not want to have any legislation thrown at them telling them how they ought to regulate their land. They must not be ignored. Farmers and ranchers are the closest to the land and are familiar with the animals that are endangered species and what needs to be done to ensure their survival. It is the duty of responsible government to sit down with those most affected by such legislation and find a common solution.

Recently United States officials under the U.S. Endangered Species Act shut down a portion of a west coast logging operation in order to save the spotted owl. This was economically disastrous for several communities. We are aware of the extreme measures taken by the U.S. Not only were they irrational but they do not in any way take the private citizen's concerns and rights into account.

The U.S. Endangered Species Act compliance process for single family residential lots states that only a recent issuance of a proclamation by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services has changed this regulation. The United States has spent approximately $825 million and has not recovered one species.

Some member from across the floor might say the U.S. measures are draconian and that this government would never follow such a lead. Let me remind Liberal members that the Minister of the Environment is a follower of U.S. practices. The U.S. banned the additive MMT in unleaded gasoline and the Minister of the Environment followed suit. The U.S. is considering a ban on sulphur and so watch for the minister to be trapped and only a step behind on this one as well.

Bill C-275 is not similar to legislation currently practised in the United States. The bill's scope is to protect only species on federal lands. Like most legislation that comes from the government side, it flirts with that slippery slope concept.

We are concerned, as I know landowners in my part of the country are, that the Minister of the Environment may be using this as a test case to bring forward some severe legislation not balanced and not fair to landowners but protecting endangered species, which we all share a concern about.

Clause 9(1)(a) states in part that the minister "may make regulations forbidding or restricting any use of, access to, activity on, or the release of any substance on, federal lands that are public

lands". Clause 9(1)(b) states in part "federal lands that are private lands".

If crown land is leased to a private rancher, which I assume occurs in some parts of Canada, does that mean the control of the land is under the jurisdiction of the crown or the leasee? When I mentioned the slippery slope, this is exactly what I am referring to.

Perhaps the sponsor of the bill, the member for Davenport, might provide me with further clarification of this section and I would appreciate it.

Clause 3(2) of the bill states:

For greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Endangered species legislation should apply equally to all Canadian citizens. There can be only one set of laws applied equally to everyone in Canada. If the government is serious about the protection of species it cannot predetermine which federal land will part of this jurisdiction and which will not; it is either all or nothing.

Furthermore the Minister of the Environment has stated all Canadians share responsibility for ensuring that species are not lost to extinction as a result of human activities. I hope the minister when drafting her legislation will make certain that all Canadians will really mean all Canadians.

On August 17, 1995 the Minister of the Environment introduced a legislative proposal dealing with endangered species. It was called the Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act. Its intent was for consultation purposes with a hope that legislation would be introduced in the late fall. As of now Canada does not have any legislation dealing with endangered species. I was recently told that even the minister did not know that such legislation was absent in Canada.

This causes me and some of my constituents great concern, not the minister's lack of knowledge of her own portfolio but rather that she will now try to bring in legislation as quickly as possible in order to make a mark for herself. A responsible government would not do such a thing and therefore I ask the environment minister to make sure she not only has the environmental activists on her side but the industrial and agricultural communities as well.

It is extremely important to find common ground between all interested parties. Decisions on endangered species legislation should not be made hastily.

The Western Stock Growers Association has outlined five goals that go a long way in protecting endangered species without unnecessary intrusive government legislation. I bring these to the attention of the House.

First, land goals: they should be to maintain productive capacity for producing food and feed through sustainable development; management of habitat for both domestic livestock and wildlife; control access to such lands to limit disturbance to all species; empower the land holder to make appropriate management decisions.

Second, people goals: allow local stakeholders a voice in the process; maintain the necessities of life and maintain the quality of life, particularly life in rural Canada.

Third, financial goals: determine all of the direct and indirect costs of protection; determine all of the economic impacts and all benefits; preparation of a comprehensive budget to show how and by whom the action plan will be paid.

Fourth, government goals: create a regulatory environment that facilitates flexible responses to endangered species management and avoids coercion of land holders; provide integration of funding of the foregoing processes; facilitate management by land holders.

I commend the member for Davenport on his bill. He has been a member in the House for some time and has been a champion for environmental causes. For this he should be applauded.

Should the bill make it to the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development I hope the member for Davenport, the chair of the committee, will seek witnesses from all interested parties. I hope he will allow individual ranchers and farmers to appear so that the committee will hear from those who would be directly affected by his legislation.

I could spend a bit of time talking about some of the hoops American landowners have been put through by the endangered species legislation in the United States but I do not have time. I hope the member for Davenport and, more important, the Minister of the Environment become familiar with these issues.

Saskatchewan on two occasions, first under a New Democratic government and second under a Conservative government, attempted to introduce endangered species legislation without properly consulting all the stakeholders involved, particularly the landowners.

Landowners are certainly conservationists. They are environmentalists. They have the best interest of the land they are stewards of and the species that live on that land at heart. Coming from an area on the South Saskatchewan River, the river valley, it has been a joy to watch species flourish and live in harmony with nature and with the people who are the stewards of the land both for cultivation and for grazing of livestock.

There can be a co-operative approach to protecting endangered species and not limiting the rights of landowners and the lessees of crown land.

I implore the government and the Minister of the Environment to pursue that approach. I also encourage the member for Davenport in his legislation, should it go farther than this point in the House, to be willing to look at amendments to his bill that might respect the rights and interests of land owners in this whole situation.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity today to speak to Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species, standing in the name of the hon. member for Davenport.

The paddlefish, the swift fox and the black-footed ferret have one thing in common: They no longer exist in the wild in Canada.

As for the Labrador duck, the sea mink and the blue walleye, all three have ceased to exist.

The Eastern cougar, the Salish sucker, the right whale, the white Prairie gentian and the spotted owl are endangered in Canada.

The white-headed woodpecker, the blue ash, the western Atlantic harbour porpoise and the spiny softshell turtle are threatened. The polar bear, the eastern bluebird, the orange-spotted sunfish, the pug-nose minnow, the prairie rose, the blue whale and the trumpeter swan are vulnerable.

Canada now has 244 animal and plant species on the endangered list. These species are affected by the loss of essential habitat, excessive harvesting, introduction of exotic species, climatic change and contamination by toxic products.

The time has clearly come for the federal government to release a legislative proposal for a Canadian endangered species protection act. The government has decided to ask for public comment on this proposal before introducing a bill in Parliament because it wants as much input as possible from as many Canadians as possible.

The document is short and straightforward. We have eliminated as much of the legalese as we could in order to allow Canadians to participate in constructive discussions before the final drafting of the bill.

Protection of endangered species is the responsibility of all groups in our society and each and every citizen in this country. We need legislation that will make the Canadian public feel directly involved.

The bill before the House today seeks to regulate the following activities: the killing, wounding, capture, collecting or disturbing of endangered species, including plants, birds, fish, mammals and their embryos. The bill also seeks to establish Canadian controls over the purchase, sale and international trade in endangered species. To me it is quite clear that Canadians want the maximum penalty imposed on anyone who tries to make money by unlawfully importing or exporting endangered species.

The committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, an arm's length scientific body, would assess the species at risk on an annual basis. The Minister of the Environment would be required to establish a list of species at risk in areas of federal jurisdiction.

Response statements outlining a plan of action would be mandatory. Recovery plans, if required, would be prepared within two years for endangered species and within three years for threatened species.

The proposal would also permit emergency measures to be taken to conserve and protect species requiring the equivalent of emergency ward treatment.

The proposed legislation would authorize the Minister of the Environment to enter into financing or conservation agreements in partnership with other governments, agencies and property owners for the purpose of preserving endangered species.

The bill would also provide for strict enforcement and severe penalties.

The federal government has a responsibility to set a benchmark for effective endangered species legislation in all of Canada's jurisdictions, but that is not enough. We also have a responsibility to work with the provinces and the territories to ensure a comprehensive national approach to the protection of endangered species in all parts of Canada. The federal government is committed to doing its part in this shared enterprise. Acting alone however, the federal government cannot come close to solving all of the problems.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick for previously adopting

legislation to protect endangered species. I am convinced that in the coming months we will be able to sign a document setting forth a formal, national approach. And I am fully supported in this conviction by the fact that Canadians expect us to pool our resources for this common cause.

Over the last year of consultations leading up to this legislative proposal, the Minister of the Environment has especially benefited from the wisdom of the Endangered Species Conservation Task Force, a group with representation from wildlife experts, environmentalists, farmers, fishermen, foresters, and the mining, pulp and paper, and petroleum industries. They are the people on the front lines. They have acted in good faith despite their often divergent interests.

She has asked the task force to reconvene to provide advice on some outstanding issues, including a strategy for education programs and the application of the legislative proposals to crown corporations. She would also like further advice on issues of cost and compensation. She is particularly concerned that farmers and aboriginal peoples, the stewards of the land, are treated fairly by a new law.

The minister asked the task force to give thought to how we can ensure the active participation of the maximum number of Canadians in protecting endangered species. In effect, how do we ensure that there is a national safety net for species at risk?

As we prepare for new legislation on the protection of endangered species in Canada, we should feel particularly grateful to the young people in this country. Students across the country have kept up the pressure on the minister. They have circulated petitions and sent thousands of individual letters into which they put a great deal of thought.

The minister means what she says when she wants Canada's young people to continue to help her write this legislation. The bill will be available on Environment Canada's green line on Internet, and the minister urges everyone to send their comments. We want to have the best possible legislation that will support economic growth while protecting genetic diversity and the species and ecosystems that constitute the biological basis of our world. We owe it to endangered species and to future generations of Canadians.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species, tabled in the House on September 28, 1994 by the member for Davenport.

This bill provides for the identification, protection and rehabilitation of flora and fauna in Canada threatened or endangered by human activity and for the protection of habitat and the restoration of population. It gives the Minister of the Environment a mandate to develop and implement programs to restore and maintain these species.

I congratulate the member for Davenport for tabling this bill and for his devotion to the cause of ecology. The goal is a very plausible one.

It must be said that, despite international conventions and the very important United Nations conference on development and the environment held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, I note that, generally, countries and governments do not do enough in this area.

As you know, I come from Chile, which, like other countries in Latin America, has rich flora and fauna. However, there as well, certain species are threatened and endangered. There is the condor, for example, a huge and majestic bird that lives in the Andes, or the llamas or the guanacos. These are species that inhabit the countries of the Andes, Peru, in particular, and Chile. Fortunately, for the first time, the Chilean government has enacted legislation on the environment. Another example is Costa Rica, which has very special and wonderful flora and fauna and is also doing a lot to preserve its natural wealth.

Efforts in species preservation must be concerted. National and international co-operation must be established. Fish, marine mammals and migratory birds must be protected first and foremost. This bill provides for the creation of two organizations: the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada and the Committee on the Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife.

It also authorizes any citizen to submit an application to the Minister of the Environment to have species added to or removed from the list of threatened or endangered species. The minister will have six months to respond to such applications and will have to table a full report on June 1 each year on the matter.

Canada still has a lot of work to do, despite its fine international reputation in environmental matters. In November 1994, the Minister of the Environment published a working document advocating the strengthening of laws to protect species threatened with extinction in Canada. In addition she announced new federal legislation in this area. At the moment in Canada, 236 species of flora and fauna are endangered, threatened or at risk.

Since the 17th century, Canada has lost at least 14 species of bird, mammal and fish. The situation worsens each year. These species are lost due to human activity. Over hunting is the most serious threat. There are fewer and fewer old forests. Wildlife is threatened by chemical pollution in the environment. Acid rain, air pollution and global warming add to the pressures on these species.

Canada should apply more firmly the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna. It must put a stop to the over harvesting of endangered species in the world as a whole. Illegal trade in certain wild animals has almost led to their extinction.

I would like to take a moment to voice my criticism at the decision by the Nova Corporation of Calgary, which was awarded the contract to build a pipeline between Argentina and Chile, and, to save money, will cross right through the city of Pirque and has already started cutting through extremely rare and ancient trees in Chile along the way. The Chilean parliament recently adopted a resolution supporting the demands of the population of Pirque, a city located at the foot of the Andean Cordillera, who want the gas pipeline to be kept at a distance from their city.

That resolution also calls for a complete study on the environmental impact to be carried out before the pipeline is constructed. In my opinion, Canadian companies in other countries ought to respect the same environmental standards as those in effect in Canada. I have taken the liberty of writing to the Minister of the Environment deploring this situation and asking that she intervene with the management of the Nova Corporation of Calgary to ensure that it will comply in Chile with the standards already in force in Canada. I would ask the same of all Canadian corporations who invest in other countries. There is a moral duty to respect the minimum legislation already in place in Canada.

Although this is typically a provincial responsibility, much to our dismay only four provinces have passed legislation to protect these species, and I am referring to Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick and Manitoba.

I am delighted to say that for years Quebec has had its own legislation and its own Department of the Environment and Wildlife, one of whose objectives is to protect threatened species.

The federal government has limited jurisdiction in this area. It is responsible for the preservation of fauna and flora on federal lands, for instance, parks managed by Ottawa. It is also responsible for regulating international and interprovincial trade and for preventing illegal trafficking in endangered species. However, it should not encroach on provincial jurisdictions, and especially Quebec's.

This legislation has raised many questions in this regard. The Quebec Minister of the Environment and Wildlife, Jacques Brassard, has already announced his own strategy for the preservation of Quebec's biological diversity. He has asked the federal government to remain within the sectors that are its exclusive responsibility.

My Bloc Quebecois colleagues, the hon. members for Laurentides and Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies, previously commented in considerable detail on the subject during the debate last June.

Although the bill's objectives are indeed praiseworthy, I cannot support this legislation because it encroaches on provincial jurisdictions, and more particularly that of Quebec.

Once again I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport on his dedication to environmental issues, which I fully support, but I also wish to inform him that the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill.

[Glen McKinnon, Liberal, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak on this bill. Previous speakers today have enunciated the fact that there has been or still is a patchwork of legislation across the country.

There appears to be some consistency lacking. Concerns about a lack of endangered species legislation in greater Canada has been expressed for well over a decade.

It is my view that all Canadians have a moral responsibility to ensure that future generations enjoy and benefit from the presence of diverse wildlife species. The federal, provincial and territorial governments together must provide the required leadership and legislative tools thereto. That strategy will set the stage for action in a number of areas, including the identification and protection of endangered species.

The biodiversity convention calls for the development or maintenance of necessary legislation to protect wildlife and their habitats at risk.

The responsibility for protecting endangered species is shared among the federal, provincial and territorial governments. Options for federal endangered species legislation have been explored with the preferred course of action being a co-operative national approach. The federal government continues to work co-operatively with the provinces and the territories to develop and ensure this national approach. Because there is currently no federal endangered species legislation in Canada and only a patchwork of provincial legislation, we need a strengthened national effort to ensure endangered species conservation.

In November 1994 the Minister of the Environment was presented with a 75,000 signature petition calling for a law to protect endangered species. This petition, the more than 5,000 subsequent letters and the comments made during public consultations clearly indicate that Canadians, children and adults alike, expect federal leadership on this issue.

An Angus Reid poll conducted in May showed that an overwhelming majority of Canadians, 94 per cent, support the idea of federal legislation to protect species at risk. The support for legislation is firm. Seventy-five per cent of Canadians strongly support such legislation and 20 per cent somewhat support it.

Last November the Minister of the Environment released a discussion paper on endangered species legislation in Canada, another one on a proposed national approach to endangered species conservation in April and a series of public workshops were held in May.

In August 1995, with full cabinet approval, the Minister of the Environment released for public comment a legislative proposal to protect endangered species entitled "The Canadian Endangered Species Protection Act: A Legislative Proposal". The legislative proposal was released to ensure that the federal government is doing its part and working co-operatively with other jurisdictions to protect endangered species throughout the country.

The minister encouraged the public to provide comments on the legislative proposal prior to introducing legislation in the House of Commons in the spring. The comments received will help the federal government finalize its plans for protecting endangered species.

The proposed legislation would help prevent wild Canadian species from becoming extinct as a consequence of human activities and mandate the recovery of species where technically and economically feasible. It would apply to species on federal lands and waters or under federal authority.

The proposal arises from discussions with the provinces and territories on a national approach to Canadian endangered species protection. It also responds to the comments, suggestions and briefings made by Canadians at the public consultation workshops held across the country, as well as to the recommendations of a federal endangered species conservation task force. There were also many useful aspects of Bill C-275, which stands in the name of hon. member for Davenport and was introduced in September 1994, which were also considered in drafting the proposed legislation.

The proposal under consideration by the Minister of the Environment is consistent with the commitment enunciated in the red book which puts forward a vision of society that "protects the long term health and diversity of all species on the planet". The proposed legislation would also clearly demonstrate this government's commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The federal endangered species conservation task force, made up of representatives from environmental groups, industry and industry associations, academia and small business was established by the Minister of the Environment to advise her on the contents of the federal endangered species legislation. The task force reconvened early in October to provide additional advice on a number of key issues, including the best way to achieve the desired safety net that will ensure that all endangered species in Canada receive the protection they deserve. The task force is expected to provide its report to the Minister of the Environment by mid-November.

The legislative proposal is intended to form the federal component of a comprehensive national safety net for the country's most vulnerable species.

With the co-operation of federal, provincial and territorial governments, the proposed legislation will succeed in providing a strong national approach for the conservation of endangered species.

The proposed legislation will apply to the full extent of federal authority to federally managed species everywhere and federally managed marine areas. The proposed legislation would establish a national listing process for all species in Canada regardless of where they occur.

Federal government actions will not intrude into provincial and territorial responsibilities. The common but differentiated responsibilities of the federal, provincial and territorial governments with respect to endangered species are recognized. The proposed legislation is intended to complement, not contradict, provincial and territorial actions.

The release of the legislative proposal prior to the tabling of a formal bill demonstrates our commitment to protecting Canada's endangered species and our commitment to open and transparent government. The federal government remains committed to working co-operatively with the provinces and territories to develop an effective national approach to endangered species conservation. By taking action at the federal level and getting our own house in order we are demonstrating our commitment to making the national approach work.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species proposed by my hon. colleague, the member for Davenport.

The protection of endangered flora and fauna must be a matter which concerns us all. Extinction is forever. When a species becomes extinct, it is a loss for both the world and for Canada. Anyone who cares about maintaining healthy ecosystems for future generations must by extension care about endangered species.

In Canada, known throughout the world for the richness of our wilderness areas, the preservation of our animals, birds and plant life is akin to the preservation of our national identity. We have a tendency to think that species extinction is someone else's problem. However, the truth is that since the arrival of Europeans,

at least eight of our distinct animal species and at least one population of caribou have become extinct.

More than 105 species, subspecies or populations of plants and animals are listed as threatened or endangered and more than 111 are considered vulnerable. It is our problem too. We can count ourselves very fortunate to have not only the hon. member for Davenport working on the problem but also the Minister of the Environment.

In the modern world, species extinction is alarming not because it happens but because of why it happens and the rate at which it happens. In the days of the dinosaurs species disappeared at the rate of roughly one every thousand years. By the Middle Ages extinction rates began to accelerate rapidly because of increasing human intervention in the environment. Between 1600 and 1900, as human beings learned to kill more and more efficiently, species were lost at a rate of one every four years. In the years between 1900 and 1975 the disappearance rate climbed to about one species per year. Today biologists estimate human beings destroy from one to three species per day. Some predict that by the end of the century the rate will have accelerated to one per hour and that up to 15 per cent of all species now on earth will be gone.

Protecting the species that are threatened today entails far more than merely restricting hunting and trapping. In our modern, industrialized world habitat destruction and environmental contamination are the most hazardous perils to our endangered species.

Each of them is far more deadly and more subtle than the gun or trap and far more difficult to control. Canada's wildlife habitats are vanishing very quickly.

Millions of hectares of marshes, swamps and other wetlands which are extremely important for waterfowl and as breeding grounds for fish have already been destroyed.

In the interests of what we thought was progress they have been drained or filled in for highways, airports, housing and industrial complexes. They have been absorbed by expanding farmlands and flooded behind large power dams. Forests have been cleared and grasslands have been fenced off, ploughed under or paved over.

Too many of Canada's wetlands have already been lost. Up to 71 per cent of prairie wetlands have been degraded by agricultural practices. In southern Ontario over 70 per cent of wetlands have been lost. The problem of wetlands is particularly serious. A dramatic decline in the waterfowl population is taking place.

Canada's modern lifestyle with its heavy dependence on industrial, household and agricultural chemicals also poses a serious risk to endangered species. Modern society puts species in jeopardy in many ways. Acid rain can kill pond and other aquatic life and has a negative effect on soils and forest growth. Unless it is stopped it is quite possible acid precipitation will begin to take a toll on endangered species.

Some wildlife biologists already believe that acid rain is at least a partial culprit in the population declines of some species of waterfowl and amphibians.

Although the environment minister has proposed draft legislation in this field, it is important to note Canada does not yet have a national endangered species act. Legislation is in force in only four provinces.

Unfortunately endangered animals, birds and plants do not recognize provincial or even international boundaries. For this reason it is imperative that Canada have a federal presence in this area.

In terms of our international commitments Canada must have clear, strong legislation protecting and rehabilitating our endangered and threatened species.

As my hon. friend said before, Canada's responsibility goes back to the UN Conference on Sustainable Development and the Environment in Rio in 1992. Canada was among if not the first nation to sign the convention on biodiversity when delegates of some 150 nations arrived at a consensus on what needs to be done. We can be proud of this but we can be even more proud once we have adopted strong legislation backing up our commitment.

I thank the hon. member for Davenport for his unflagging devotion to the cause of protecting our vulnerable wildlife. I also commend both the member and the Minister of the Environment for joining forces to ensure that strong law protecting threatened species and their habitats becomes a reality.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on this bill.

Our colleague from Davenport has worked his whole career in the area of environmental sustainability and environmental support. I am pleased to support him in the efforts he brings to the House to help us understand and continue with his striving to support the environment and in this case endangered species in Canada.

One of my favourite things to do in my riding of Brant is to go into the schools, public schools or high schools. Without a doubt in every circumstance the issue of the environment is always raised.

When I think back to my days as a young student it was never a top of the mind subject. We truly have come a long way in terms of appreciating and understanding the importance of our environment and the role it plays in the lives of our young people. I am so glad to see the changing attitudes of Canadians toward our environment, toward the importance of sustainability.

In my riding I have the great fortune to live on a farm. My family has been there for five generations. One of the things we enjoy doing every Sunday if possible is walking through the fields along the railway tracks, through the wooded areas and looking at the wildlife. We see red foxes, racoons, deer. We look at the flora and every spring we wait to see the blooming trilliums and the may-apples. It has become a tradition in our family that we pass along from generation to generation. It is one of my favourite things to do with my two sons on a Sunday afternoon.

At the schools the children always ask me what the government is doing about the environment. I am always very pleased to explain to them that our Deputy Prime Minister also has the responsibility for the environment and that she is taking very assertive and definite approaches to making sure the things that have become very much a part of our country remain in our country.

I was shocked to find out as I was preparing for this discussion that there are 244 endangered species in Canada alone; 244 endangered, threatened or vulnerable species. Knowing that, we can understand why the hon. member for Davenport feels so strongly about the importance of this legislation.

I am not sure this is true but as I look at information I see nine extinct species, things in my lifetime I will never see. A further 11 species used to exist in Canada but are now extinct. The importance of preparing to maintain and protect our fragile environment is something that has to be critical to all of us.

I am very proud of a project undertaken by a number of groups in my riding, the Brant Waterways Foundation, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Grand River Trails Association. They came together in partnership with the federal government through the environmental partners program to develop the Brantford environmental education project. Along the Grand River, now a heritage river, we have created walkways, bike paths and trails that all can enjoy.

The thing that is so important in this regard is along the shores of the Grand River are Carolinian forests, themselves an endangered and rare set of flora and fauna. We are very lucky in our community to have them as part of our surrounding environment, something we can enjoy with ease. We are also lucky to have organizations in Brant that are conscious of how fragile this great resource is.

Coming together and with the support of the federal government we have protected that it in a way that people can enjoy it. It is not for the people of Brant only. I encourage members of the House and Canadians from across the country to come and join with us.

At our local level we have a consciousness, an awareness of the importance of the environment. I am glad that will continue. However, when we look at the rest of the country it is interesting to note that only in Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick is there legislation to protect our flora and fauna. Again, another reason why I would congratulate the member for Davenport for bringing this legislation forward.

The federal government can play a real role in ensuring that our natural heritage remains with us. It will not be a role that is interventionist or that gets in the way of what the provinces want to do. Rather it is one that will co-ordinate activities, that will add to that which we already have, that will make sure the Canadian citizenry understands the importance and has access to our environment.

We know from looking at things that have taken place in the past, and I have to reference the Canada Health Act, that very often it is promises that start with good pieces of legislation. However, it may be very slow to evolve across the country. That is where a strong federal government can play a role.

I make that relationship with this particular piece of legislation and say there is a role for us to play at the federal level to ensure that Canada from coast to coast to coast maintains what has become world renowned in natural beauty, natural strength, natural resources and natural heritage.

I am pleased to be part of the debate. I know people back in my riding who are so sensitive and appreciative of the issues of the environment will also be glad to know that the government is sponsoring this kind of legislation.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to speak to Bill C-275.

I congratulate the hon. member for Davenport on this bill and also the Minister of the Environment and her parliamentary secretary for the work they are doing on this very important topic.

It is very important to take the initiatives of these people and work with them. We owe our children and our children's children our prompt attention to this very important endangered species Act.

This past year I attended two open houses at the Body Shop, one in Kingston, Ontario and one in Belleville, Ontario. This respectable company had a great display set up with everything from colouring contests to T-shirts and it encourages children to take part. It has done a great job of making people aware of endangered species around the world.

I am sure if we looked at the bottom line of the Body Shop stores across Canada and talked to the individual owners, we would find that their number one customers are the teenagers and the youth of today. Our daughter is one of those customers. I commend our youth. They understand the importance of our environment.

We are very fortunate that our children, including my daughter, Kayla Rebecca, have developed this great love for country, love for the environment and our wildlife. I realize that we do not have to go to the Body Shop to be reminded on their interest.

My colleague previously mentioned visiting schools. I also want to mention this. I was on a local school board a few years ago when we started up a community school and we now have a day care situated across the road from our home. I visit schools and day cares. Posters are plastered on the walls. It does not matter what topic is displayed, sports or the environment, we see birds and other species depicted on the posters for any topic. Our youth are very aware.

We all agree that the greatest asset of our country is our youth. We are very fortunate. They are very wise in their respect of the planet, our country, our lands and our waterways. Therefore, we owe our children attention to this now.

My riding of Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington extends from the Thousand Islands, which we are glad to share with my colleague for Kingston and the Islands. Then we circle around and go to the Bay of Quinte, the walleye capital of the world. That is where we had the live release tournament this year, the largest walleye tournament in North America with 7,000 to 8,000 fisherpeople, but they released all the fish and it made our children very happy.

I drive from my office in Napanee to Bancroft and on up to Algonquin Park. My riding touches quite a bit of Algonquin Park. Quite often I see wildlife. It is a real thrill.

The other day I was in Algonquin Park for the Art in the Park show. My wife and daughter were with me. We were driving along and a tour bus and cars were stopped. People were having the thrill of a lifetime because there was a bear in the bush. The bear was playing up for the public. The bear was standing there scratching on the trees and foraging a bit. It certainly reminds us of what we would lose and what we do lose any time we lose one species.

Someone else mentioned that when I went to school we did not pay all this attention to the environment. No, we did not but perhaps it was being introduced into our subconscious minds. One of the highlights in public school was arbour day, when we went out and planted trees. Over a few years we did plant a few thousand trees and made a small contribution. I am sure I have driven by some of those areas. The trees are tall now because that was a while ago. Trees are very important; they provide a natural habitat for birds.

When I went to school we did not have respect for the wetlands, I admit. Today our children are more curious and more in love with all of these endangered species.

What do we do? Where do we go from here? We have all heard that there is no national law to protect them. Some of the provinces have laws. I am glad to see that the federal government and Environment Canada are going to work with the provinces on this. They are going to work with different stakeholders, groups, provinces, territories, aboriginal groups and wildlife management boards.

We can learn a lot from the aboriginal groups, from the natives in our communities. Someone listening to me is going to say: "Yes, I heard about some natives that went out during the fish spawning season and speared a whole lot of fish". Yes, there are bad apples in every barrel, but I will tell you our native populations live in harmony with this country. There is much we can learn from them. They have always practised conservation.

When you tap any natural resource you leave some for seed. My uncle was a trapper many years ago, a colourful character. He made a lot of money some years trapping beaver. One day I was with him and I used an axe to cut through two and a half feet of ice on the river behind our home. He set the trap and took out a very nice beaver, but he said that was it. I went with him the next day and he said: "We will not set any more traps here. We have to leave some for the future".

I will conclude by saying I really appreciate the opportunity for me an other people to speak on this. I want to acknowledge that our youth will lead the way. They remind us every day and every weekend at home.

[The Speaker]

My colleagues, the hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on September 21 I asked the Minister of the Environment what measures the government was taking to counter the human causes

of climate change. In the meantime, a draft report by the United Nations panel on climate change has been published citing human activity as the contributing factor to climate change. In addition, there has been an Environment Canada report citing increasing summer temperatures in the last 10 years.

What is the cause of climate change? Briefly, it is caused by an envelope in the atmosphere which is created by the burning of fossil fuels on our part as a society, beginning with the industrial revolution 150 years ago.

What are the effects of this envelope? This envelope does not allow solar rays deflected once they touch the earth's surface to re-enter the atmosphere. Thus, the greenhouse effect is gradually formed. In other words, the effect of solar rays as deflected by the earth's surface is no longer the same as in the past. They are contained by the greenhouse gases envelope.

What is the main problem at the base of this? In essence, it is our dependence on fossil fuels, coal and gasoline, but also the emission of methane gases in our dump sites and the production of other gases that are mostly correlated to human activities or the necessities of agriculture and the like.

Next month the international panel on climate change will meet and likely approve a draft report which will mark a major turning point in the climate change debate.

Until now some members of the scientific community believe that the rising temperatures since the beginning of the industrial revolution could be attributed to at least in good part a variability in climate rather than the result of human activity. With this draft, the scientific panel will likely state and confirm that climate change is taking place as a result of human activity. Hence the adoption of this report by the international panel on climate change would result in an authoritative confirmation that global warming is posing a threat.

Some have suggested that the effects of climate change may actually be advantageous to Canada. These assumptions are now being refuted.

The report I am referring to predicts the changes associated with climate change are likely to have a negative impact not only on human health but on other human activities such as agriculture, forestry and the like.

The consequences are far reaching in economic and social terms. These are again explored in the panel's draft report as discussed last week in Montreal. The first attempt to assess the social and economic impact of climate change is the one that took place in Montreal.

I would appreciate very much a reply by the parliamentary secretary to this issue which, although stretched into the long term, is going to be of significant importance for the human family the globe over.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport raised an important issue when he asked this question of the Minister of the Environment a month ago. He of course based it on an editorial in the Globe and Mail. I want to refer to that which was on the subject of the need to take action on climate change. It was published shortly before the hon. member asked his question.

The editorial makes some good points about voluntary approaches and the need to adapt to a rapidly changing climate. These clearly are not enough to deal with the problem. After all, the evidence that our climate may be changing at an unprecedented rate is rolling in on a daily basis as the hon. member has indicated.

In Canada, the summer of 1995 was the third warmest in a century. The year 1995 was the second worst year in history for forest fires. Record rains have hit Alberta and five early season tropical storms hit parts of the Atlantic provinces.

This year is shaping up as the earth's warmest year on record. It is also a preview of what we can expect in the future. Scientists are concluding that recent data constitute growing statistical evidence that their previous predictions of climate change are being borne out.

Therefore, in calling for voluntary reductions of emissions of greenhouse gases the Globe and Mail is heading in the right direction. After all, the Globe and Mail would have us recognize that the costs of climate change are also rapidly rising. Damages from the Alberta floods in June exceeded $50 million. Heat and humidity helped fuel one of Ontario's most destructive storms, causing $20 million in property losses and firefighting costs associated with the loss of nearly seven million hectares of forest across Canada.

By reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases we will reduce the threat and costs of climate change and at the same time create jobs and become more competitive economically. I am quite sure that as Canada's business leaders continue to respond to the economic opportunity associated with reducing energy consumption, thereby reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, the Globe and Mail will take another step in the right direction and agree that the goals contained in Canada's national action program on climate change must be met, that we must stabilize our emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and address further reductions over the longer term. Meeting such a goal will require that we take a mix of approaches, voluntary measures wherever possible and market-based or regulatory measures where appropriate.

As my time has run out, I conclude my remarks.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues, pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.41 p.m.)