Debates of Nov. 20th, 1995

The House resumed from June 20, 1995 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

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago Bill S-7 was introduced through the back door by the government and passed into law without serious thought about its long term consequences.

With Bill C-275 we again see Liberal environmental policy being brought to the House surreptitiously. Why do I say this? By a curious coincidence, a discussion document issued by Environment Canada last winter contains, almost verbatim, material now incorporated into Bill C-275.

For example, section 9 provides for the prohibition or restriction of any activity deemed threatening to an endangered species on privately occupied land under federal jurisdiction or, with provincial consent, on any provincial lands.

That clearly threatens grazing and timber leases in western Canada. Also, according to the definition in the bill of provincial lands it threatens any private lands registered under provincial law. So much for property rights.

What evidence would the environmental bureaucrats need to designate a species as endangered and its habitat as protected? Pursuant to section 4 the minister would have the arbitrary authority to declare a species endangered. Page 26 of the discussion paper recommends that scientific uncertainty should not be used as a reason not to act.

I will read briefly from this document:

In cases when high quality scientific data are not available for a candidate species, methods involving estimation, inference and projection are acceptable. The effect of current or potential threats may be extrapolated into the future as long as it can be reasonably supported. If estimates about the status of a species vary, it is appropriate to choose the one that leads the listing in the highest risk category as a precaution.

The sorry state of science in 1995 is that witch hunting bureaucrats are forthrightly recommending that the scientific method be discarded. I think the envirocrats are smoking something and it is not environmentally friendly.

That pamphlet refers to public consultation work shops to be held in cities across Canada. Consultation with whom? Certainly not with the people most likely to be affected, Canada's farmers and ranchers and their municipal councils which brought this matter to my attention.

This document and the bill spawned by it illustrate the typical attitude of Canadian urbanites that rural Canada is their playground, unfortunately cluttered up by all those quaint rustics who do nasty things like cultivating land and producing cheap, wholesome food for Canada and for the world.

Much of rural Canada is lawfully owned by those who live on it. Urbanite nature lovers looking for pleasant places to have picnics, build fires, ride dirt bikes and dump their beer cans should consider the convenience of doing these things on the lawns of the hon. member for Davenport or the hon. member for Hamilton East. Perhaps then those members would have a more sympathetic attitude toward our much put upon farmers.

Farmers do not have much clout in today's Canada. They made up 30 per cent of the population in 1931 but account for only 3.2 per cent today. They are the real endangered species because in the eyes of Liberal politicians and bureaucratic whiz kids they are irrelevant.

Rural people are as powerless to stop this bill as they were to stop gun control Bill C-68 which the House shoved down their protesting throats last June with no significant input from them. With their feeble numbers they do not matter to a government preoccupied with the electoral map. Like Napoleon, Liberals measure the importance of a group by the size of its battalions.

Legislation of this nature can be counterproductive because it casts Environment Canada in an adversarial role. For example, any farmer with burrowing owls in the pasture would have to be demented to report their presence to anyone. I do not think that we in Canada will ever reach the point that has been reported in

Oregon where it is claimed that some woodlot owners shoot spotted owls on sight. When someone's livelihood is threatened, who knows?

Most rural Canadians, especially ranchers in the west, have been very good stewards of the land and most are appreciative of the wildlife which sometimes grazes on their crops and competes with them for native forage. As a result, wildlife populations in the rural west, especially in my riding, are immeasurably larger than they were 50 or even 20 years ago.

Canadians like to poke fun at the endangered species lunacies of our friends south of the border. It has been 17 years since the Tellico dam project in Tennessee was stopped to protect the habitat of the snail darter, a species remarkably similar to scores of others which, in the fullness of geological time, has become extinct. The silliness took place because under the stringent conditions of the U.S. endangered species act the regulators had no choice.

If that act had been literally applied the deliberate international extinction of the smallpox virus could have led to fines or jail sentences for the public health officials who so wantonly and cruelly destroyed the species.

Tens of millions of dollars have been spent down there to preserve the habitat of various rodents, including the Choctawahatchee beach mouse in Florida and the kangaroo rat in California.

When the U.S. fish and wildlife service learned of the presence of kangaroo rats on 800 acres of Cindy Domenigonis' California farm it would not allow her to work her land for three years. That is the direction in which Canada will be heading if this so-called private member's bill becomes law.

Bill C-275 epitomizes the Liberal propensity to regulate, control and run roughshod over individuals who do not have big battalions at their command. I oppose it and I urge anyone who believes in sound science, effective conservationism and the rights of rural people to oppose it as well.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if there is doubt whether a species is going to be extinct then we want to make sure we make the right decisions and err on the side of caution. I am pleased to speak on Bill C-275, sponsored by the member for Davenport, the chair of the environment committee.

The paddlefish, the swift fox and the blackfooted ferret have one thing in common: they no longer exist in the wild in Canada. The Labrador duck, the sea mink and the blue walleye have one thing in common: they no longer exist at all.

The eastern cougar, the salish sucker, the right whale, the white prairie gentian and the spotted owl are all 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 pugnose minnow, the prairie rose, the blue whale and the trumpeter swan are vulnerable.

Two hundred and forty-four species of wild fauna and flora are at risk in our country. They suffer from loss of critical habitat, overharvesting, the introduction of foreign species, climate change and contamination from toxic substances.

The time has clearly come for the federal government to set legislation to protect endangered species. The protection of endangered species is the responsibility of all sectors of our society and all citizens in our country. We need legislation in which all Canadians feel a vested interest.

Legislation would call for regulations on the killing, wounding, capturing, collecting or distributing of endangered plants, fish, mammals and embryos. Legislation would also call for Canadian controls on the buying, selling and international trafficking of endangered species.

Canadians want us to throw the book at anyone who tries to make a fast buck from illegally importing or exporting endangered species.

The committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, an arm's length scientific body, would assess species at risk on an annual basis. The Minister of the Environment would be required to establish a list of the species at risk in areas of federal jurisdiction. Response statements outlining planned actions would be mandatory. Recovery plans if required would be prepared within two weeks for endangered species and within three years for threatened species.

Legislation would also permit emergency measures to be taken to conserve and protect species requiring the equivalent to emergency ward treatment. Legislation would authorize the Minister of the Environment to establish funding for conservation agreements with other governments, organizations and private landlords in partnership efforts to preserve endangered species. Legislation would also authorize tough 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. That is not enough. We have a responsibility to work with the provinces, the territories and aboriginal people 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, the federal government cannot come close to solving all the problems. I want to congratulate Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick for already passing legislation on behalf of endangered species. I also want to congratulate Alberta which has committed to introduce legislation. I particularly want to congratulate 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.

Farmers and aboriginal people, the stewards of the land, must be treated fairly by the new legislation. The maximum number of Canadians must participate in protecting endangered species. We must have a national safety net for species at risk.

As we move toward new endangered species legislation, a very large part of the credit must go to young Canadians. Students from throughout the country have kept the pressure on the government. They have collected petition after petition and they have sent to the Minister of the Environment thousands and thousands of carefully considered individual letters and drawings. We want the continued help and support of Canada's young people in preparing a final bill.

The government's proposed legislation is already on Environment Canada's green lane on the Internet. We look forward to receiving feedback. We want the best possible law to achieve economic growth while preserving the diversity of genes, species and ecosystems that are the biological foundation of the world. We owe that to the endangered species. We owe that to future generations of Canadians.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Beaches—Woodbine, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support this bill today.

Canada has a strong reputation in the world in matters of the environment. Indeed, Canada is involved in many international projects to help save the environment, the ecosystems and the species which allow people in the rest of the world to live decent lives in a rich environment.

People in other countries are convinced that our actions show leadership in protecting the planet's biodiversity and species.

The fact is that human beings with whom we share this earth are counting on Canada to show them the way. We must ensure that our actions are up to our reputation.

People in the rest of the world have faith in Canada's fundamental decency and commitment to protecting planetary biodiversity. The world believes that we care and that we are acting. Quite frankly the world does not know that Canada is one of the few countries in the world without federal legislation on endangered species.

We have also been moved by Canada's kids. They know we do not have federal legislation and our children through their program "There Otter Be a Law", have been a driving force in pushing Canada to do what it needs to do to protect endangered species.

In my riding I have a classroom of kids who have worked very hard in the last year to protect the bowhead whale. They have sent petitions. They have written letters to the Minister of the Environment and to myself. I have made statements in the House. In fact today we have a sanctuary for the bowhead whale which is absolutely wonderful. These children have been extremely gratified. When I met with them this week in my riding to tell them what had happened, they felt they had had a wonderful impact on the issue. This is great for them because they learn a little about democracy. They also felt that it is possible to fight with facts and they felt very gratified. To me it was very worthwhile.

Since we began looking at protecting endangered species in federal legislation, we have received more than 5,000 individually written and carefully thought out letters from students calling for swift action to protect endangered species.

The classes are in every riding. There is a class also in Iqaluit working on the issue of the bowhead whale. In fact the class in my riding is hooked up to the Internet to work with the class in Iqaluit to discuss the issue of endangered species.

This is a wonderful way to connect Canadians across the country. These children are working for the future of their environment and their space. They have started now connecting and talking to one another in parts of the country. That is one of the most worthwhile things that we can encourage.

Therefore we, as the adults of this country, can only but follow the example. We can no longer leave it up to the children.

In every province and territory and in communities big and small, when we meet with public and high school students, they want to know what governments, businesses, environmentalists, farmers and scientists are doing to ensure a bright future for the beluga whale, the prairie rose, the porpoise, the whooping crane, the leatherback turtle and the polar bear.

We all know, I think, that the future of endangered species has become a major concern not only for young people but also for the whole Canadian population. Canadians clearly understand federal responsibilities with respect to cod and halibut, as well as the economic consequences of the extinction of marine species.

In the last few weeks every Canadian watched as our skies filled with migratory birds leaving Canada. That rite of fall is part of Canada's psyche. Canadians love those species and regard them as part of what makes us a country.

Canadians understand that when a species disappears, it disappears forever. They do not want Canada to be responsible for making that happen. Canadians understand that when a species disappears, the world loses and when the world loses, humanity loses.

When we deal with the world's environment, we speak of common but differentiated responsibilities. We need to find a means to fulfil both our common responsibilities and our differentiated responsibilities.

For our part, that means we must push for a solid, co-ordinated and co-operative national approach to ensure the survival of species. That is our common responsibility. It also means that the federal government must fulfil its differentiated responsibilities by showing legislative leadership in areas of federal jurisdiction.

Every jurisdiction and every landowner have common but differentiated responsibilities. Each of us must show the maximum leadership possible in our own sphere. We do not need to point fingers at each other. We need to point ahead.

[The Deputy Speaker]

There being no other members wishing to speak, the hon. member for Davenport is entitled under our rules to briefly sum up.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two points. It is customary to thank colleagues on all sides of the House for their intervention, particularly the member for Bourassa, the member for Madawaska-Victoria, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminister, the member for Simcoe North, the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, the member for London-Middlesex, the member for Comox-Alberni, the member for Laurentides, the member for Brandon-Souris, the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton, the member for Brant, the member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Waterloo.

The intent of this bill is to protect biodiversity. That has been repeatedly indicated by those who want to accept what is its real intent. It aims as well as we can through words and proposed legislation to identify, protect and rehabilitate threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna.

We cover the Canadian territory as we know it. We are well aware that nature does not respect political boundaries. There is a distinct responsibility for any government that flows mainly, as some members have recognized, from the fact that Canada was the first nation to ratify the biodiversity convention in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. As many members have quite rightly pointed out there is a responsibility at the provincial level, at the municipal level and at the federal level because of federal lands, interprovincial movements and international commitments.

Therefore the three levels of government together could do something useful for the benefit of future generations and for the benefit of nature, wealth, for the benefit of le patrimoine, as they call it in French, in terms of protecting threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna.

We know that species when severely threatened disappear from the face of the earth. There is a tremendous concern about the rapidity of this trend. This bill cannot go beyond the scope and the jurisdiction of the federal government. I would like to allay the fears of some members who had spoken earlier about this aspect.

It must be stressed that the bill is being examined by Parliament at a time when the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis and the delegation he led to Indonesia has managed to bring Canada to the forefront of global efforts to protect biological diversity. As we all know, last week Canada won a competition in Jakarta. Montreal will be housing the United Nations secretariat on biological diversity. It is a tremendous development for which we are all proud and for which we would like to congratulate our colleague for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis.

The secretariat will monitor the 1992 biological diversity convention. It should be remembered and stressed that it has been signed and even ratified by some 150 nations. We are moving ahead with other nations, as well we should. The goal of the protection of the earth's plant and animal species is becoming an urgent item on the agenda.

To conclude, I would like to again thank the members of the House who have participated in the debate and have endorsed the initiative which aims to ensure strong federal legislation on endangered species and preserve biological diversity as it is prescribed by the convention ratified in 1992. It aims at showing respect for other living organisms and ensures that we maintain a rich and diverse ecosystem for the benefit of present and future generations.

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

Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Prior to you putting the question, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following. I seek the unanimous consent of the House that any recorded division that may be asked for later this day, in other words in very short order, on Bill C-275, be deferred until the end of Government Orders on Tuesday, November 21.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to the unanimous order made a moment or so ago, the division is deferred until Tuesday, November 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent to suspend until twelve o'clock noon, at which time we will commence Government Orders.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to suspend the sitting until noon?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.35 a.m.)

The House resumed at 12.03 p.m.

The House resumed from November 10 consideration of the motion that Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.