Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction, has finally been introduced in this House.
Following this stage, the House will be able to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. We will thus have complied with regular legislative procedures. At the outset, we have to admit that everyone agrees that wildlife species must be protected. The flora and fauna are vital components of life on earth. Without flowers, trees, plants, animals and fish, life on earth would be impossible.
Unfortunately, human activity has seriously damaged biodiversity. Only recently have we acknowledged this and started trying to reverse the process. We must act vigorously before it is too late, though it is unfortunately too late for some species which are already extinct.
In the last two decades, the preservation of biodiversity has become an international priority. As a result, we had the 1980 World Conservation Strategy; the 1991 report entitled "Caring for the Earth"; the 1987 report of the World Commission on Environment and Development entitled "Our Common Future"; and more recently, in 1992, the International Convention on Biological Diversity. As we can see, environmental awareness is a recent reality.
In Canada, some provinces and the federal government have already passed laws in this area. Some 12 federal acts deal with the conservation and protection of threatened species.
These laws include the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act, the Fisheries Act, the National Parks Act, the Health of Animals Act, and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
At the provincial level, four provinces-New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Manitoba-have their own laws designed to protect endangered species. As for the other provinces and the territories, they have laws on wildlife management and endangered species. Their content varies considerably.
On October 2, at a meeting in Charlottetown, the federal and provincial ministers responsible for wildlife agreed in principle on a national convention for the protection of wildlife in Canada. This agreement is designed to prevent the extinction of wildlife species in Canada as a result of human activity. It establishes a new framework for co-operation between the federal, provincial and territorial governments. It deals with co-operation, collaboration and complementarity between its signatories.
Quebec, which supports the general principles and goals behind Canada's endangered species conservation projects, was already reluctant to support the national agreement, fearing overlap between Bill C-65, which we are debating today, and the laws already in effect in the provinces, particularly the one in Quebec, in force since 1989, which works well and is already producing results.
Quebec minister David Cliche said, and I quote: "We risk creating more red tape instead of dedicating ourselves to what really matters to us: the fate of endangered species".
Bill C-65 introduced by the federal minister only confirms the apprehensions of the Quebec minister. Again, the federal government clumsily encroaches on Quebec jurisdiction.
For ministers in Quebec and other provinces, including Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the principle behind the Charlottetown accord was very simple: if the ministers agreed that a species was endangered, the entity having jurisdiction over this species' territory or habitat would be responsible for the protection of both the species and its habitat.
It is impossible to protect a species without protecting its habitat. Since the provinces have jurisdiction over the habitats found within their territory, the province, in this case Quebec, is responsible for the protection of this habitat. But, obviously, the federal minister did not understand that principle adhered to by four provinces which already have legislation on endangered species.
Bill C-65 says that the federal government can act in order to protect the habitat of any federal species, and the definition of species is not limited to those species under federal jurisdiction
like migratory birds and any species identified as transboundary, such as caribous crossing the border, for example.
In clear terms, that means the federal government could unilaterally decide to take action on provincial territories if it considers that a given species is threatened, endangered or at risk, which caused an outcry from provincial ministers.
Bill C-65 goes against the intent of the Charlottetown accord, which says that if the ministers agree to put a species on the list, it is up to the jurisdiction controlling the territory to make sure the habitat of that species is duly protected.
Bill C-65 could allow some unthinkable and unacceptable interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-65 essentially replicates the main points of the bill presented by the previous minister in 1995. That bill had been so massively opposed that it was never passed. One of the criticisms was that the proposed measures were not strong enough.
We believe that this bill presents some tremendous risk of duplication and federal interference. Its scope is much too wide and it could create legislative overlap and duplication.
We also have much to criticize in the whole process for implementing the protection system described in the bill. In particular, jurisdiction as provided will allow enforcement by the federal government on provincial land without the consent of the provinces, because of the definitions given of federal land, aquatic species and migratory birds. One provision empowers the minister to rule on transboundary species, which means that the federal government would be able to take action not only with respect to nearly all species, but also with respect to their habitat, without the issue being debated in the House, as the House does not discuss regulations.
I will conclude by adding that, in any case, this bill will be referred to a committee, where we will surely propose some amendments to ensure that the legislation does not duplicate existing and very good provincial legislation. I hope the government and the official opposition will agree on various amendments.
We will also see what can be done after hearing from various witnesses. We will then determine the position of the Bloc Quebecois on this issue.