Debates of May 15th, 2000

Canada Transportation Act

[Some hon. members]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

The House resumed from May 11 consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Species At Risk Act

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to speak to Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.

I must say that when I first heard that legislation dealing with species at risk was to be tabled in the House, I thought that it was a particular bill aimed at protecting hon. members on the government side. With the creation of the new Canadian Alliance, the real species at risk in this place will be Liberal members of the House. Of course I was later told that it was actually to protect species at risk concerning wildlife, so I was happy to modify my speech slightly to be able to deal with that.

The Canadian Alliance knows that all Canadians care about protecting species at risk and indeed about protecting and preserving the environment as a whole. A majority of Canadians agree that the fragile balance of our ecosystems must be protected and preserved.

Today I want to talk about the path to protecting species at risk. In doing so I should like to focus my discussion on what caring for species at risk should look like, because there are different views held by many Canadians on how this can best be achieved.

In my remarks today I will address the deficiencies which the Canadian Alliance sees within the government's approach in Bill C-33, as well as some of the measures we support. In doing so I will highlight the credibility gap from which the Liberals suffer on protecting species at risk. I will also outline some of the Canadian Alliance solutions for protecting species at risk and demonstrate how our plan to protect species at risk is balanced and accommodating, as well as practical and workable.

The purposes of Bill C-33 are the following: to prevent species indigenous to Canada from becoming exterminated or extinct, to provide for the recovery of endangered species, and to encourage the management of other species from becoming extinct. These are noble and worthwhile objectives, but they are ones which the Canadian Alliance supports just as most Canadians do.

I have already mentioned how much Canadians care about protecting species at risk. Recent polling confirms this point. However we know that simply caring is not enough. We know this from other life experiences as well. Let us consider how loving parents show their care and love for a sick child. There is no substitute for proper medical care. In a similar way, simply loving our unspoiled wilderness and indigenous species is no substitute for a workable plan to ensure the preservation of the environment.

I believe it is important to emphasize from the outset that on the issue of protecting species at risk there is a number of very concerned and caring stakeholders who, although they may come from very different perspectives, are equally concerned for the environment.

This issue should not be about which individuals or groups care more about protecting and preserving species and their habitats. Rather, it should be about how various stakeholders, landowners, conservation groups, governments, and the public at large can work together to express their care for species at risk through co-operative efforts in a way that will allow for species and their habitats to truly be protected.

What is the role of government? It is to build bridges rather than walls between stakeholders.

The role of government in protecting species at risk is a very important one. I must say that I believe the role of government fundamentally is to empower stakeholders to work together. Within the next few minutes I will discuss how I believe this can happen.

However, first let me say what I believe the role of government is not. It is not to wield power over stakeholders. Government is only one of many stakeholders and we must not lose sight of this fact throughout the debate. The House would do well to recognize that the vast amount of resources, knowledge, energy and will to protect species at risk actually lies outside the government within and among stakeholders, landowners, scientists, conservationists and the public. Regrettably, I believe that the government and the minister have seriously confused what their real role should be in creating a workable plan to protect species at risk.

The government has not yet realized that its real role is to build bridges between stakeholders, not walls. This is the real task of government on the issue of species at risk, one which the government has left undone. In the species at risk act the Liberals have introduced a piece of legislation that will do more to polarize and divide stakeholders rather than to bring them together. In the next few minutes I will expand on a number of problematic areas the Canadian Alliance sees with the species at risk act and what our solutions to these problems are.

First I should like to turn the attention of members to the most critical element that must appear within any workable species at risk legislation which the government has virtually ignored. What should our caring for species at risk look like? Why is respect for property rights central to this legislation?

I affirm that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species and to sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations. Furthermore, we maintain that for any endangered species legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental rights of private property owners.

We believe that any action plan to protect species at risk must be based on respect for the species who inhabit our waters and lands and respect for those who own those waters and lands. I will return to this point in a moment when I highlight the major flaws within the legislation.

The problem of enabling legislation to protect species at risk is that in recent days we have been hearing common complaints on a number of bills about a disturbing trend in the way the government is enacting legislation. I am referring to the kinds of enabling legislation the government has become known for introducing. It is the kind of legislation that allows for regulations to be developed after legislation has been passed.

The problem is that these regulations are never scrutinized by members of parliament or by committees. Instead, it is a way for the government to slip an agenda through the back door. This kind of approach to legislation is a disgrace to democracy because issues that ought to be dealt with and which could be improved are never properly dealt with. Yet this is exactly the approach which has been taken within the legislation.

The framework for recovery and action plans are outlined along with the broad and sweeping powers the federal government will have to protect endangered species or habitat throughout subsequent order in council regulations. The real nuts and bolts will appear only after the legislation has been passed. Subsection 1(4) reads:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister...make regulations defining any term or expression for the purpose of this Act or the regulations—

How is the House to know what we are passing when the government essentially has a blank slate upon which to write in whatever it wants after the fact?

A second issue is that of compensation. The implications of this style of legislation and governance are becoming increasingly more troublesome, particularly in dealing with such fundamental issues as property rights to which I alluded a few moments ago.

It is painfully obvious that the government has missed this point altogether. How is this obvious? This government has devoted only minor sections of the entire bill to issues of utmost importance to landowners, namely, compensation for land expropriated for the purpose of species or habitat protection or recovery and voluntary stewardship initiatives.

The minister has offered no clear formula for compensation within this bill. Compensation, like the majority of other important issues in the bill, will be dealt with through order in council regulations following its passage, as I just mentioned.

The minister has tried to pretend that he is dealing with the issue by appointing a distinguished resource economics expert to provide advice regarding compensation for affected landowners. Still the minister refuses to recognize the centrality of this one issue to the success of any species at risk legislation. The minister fails to see that compensation for expropriated land, if not at fair market value, is simply not fair.

If the minister would only set out the above principle within the legislation, the appointment of this resource economist would probably be largely unnecessary. Furthermore, if the government would commit to a fair market value principle this legislation would most likely enjoy the support of a majority of landowners. Instead, by stubbornly ignoring the rights of property owners, the minister has isolated an entire group of stakeholders.

On this point it was interesting to hear the minister's view on the issue the other day when the parliamentary secretary spoke to the bill. She stated:

Where the federal safety net is used to protect critical habitat on private land there will be provisions to compensate for unexpected losses caused by unforeseen restrictions on the normal use of that land. The compensation provisions, however, will not create perverse incentives to inhibit voluntary habitat protection measures in hopes of receiving future compensation.

What kind of government would make this kind of outrageous statement? What is so perverse is that a government would show this much disdain for the property rights of Canadians; that a government would show this much disrespect for landowners, who are already committed as stewards of their lands and whose families have in many cases been stewards of the lands for decades and even centuries, in many cases before the birth of Canada or the provinces.

Landowners have no intention of lining up at the cash register, as the minister said so arrogantly a few months ago. Does the minister really think that is what landowners want? On the contrary, landowners want nothing more than to continue to own, use and care for their lands. It is this government that is creating perverse disincentives for landowners.

The message the minister is sending by not providing a fair market value guarantee is that landowners cannot be sure they can trust a minister or a government which refuses to guarantee that their fundamental property rights will be respected.

The minister has this backward. Co-operation among stakeholders is unlikely unless landowners are assured that any land expropriated for species or habitat protection or recovery will be expropriated at fair market value.

We also see that this legislation is virtually silent on the issue of stewardship initiatives. Bear in mind, this is from a minister who is very fond of talking of stewardship, agreements and partnerships in the press conferences he holds. Again, the parliamentary secretary said in the House:

For this legislation to be effective all affected stakeholders must be engaged. Reality and experience dictate that to get the job done we need landowners, conservation groups and other levels of government working together.

We completely agree. The question is, how will the government achieve this? The government is certainly not telling us how in this legislation. What is its approach? This is a government that talks about stewardship and voluntary incentives at the same time as it talks about forcefully taking control of lands. In doing this the Liberals are sending a clear message that they do not fundamentally believe in the goodwill of Canadians. There is nothing in Bill C-33 that builds on voluntary stewardship initiatives.

This brings me to my fourth point. While the species at risk act is heavy on punitive measures, search and confiscation, through the establishment of enforcement officers along with threats of fines and imprisonment, it is light on doing anything to promote meaningful voluntary stewardship initiatives, which have so far been very successful. The majority of producers and landowners believe that the government could achieve more through co-operation with farmers and ranchers than through threats of punishment.

I now turn to an area within this legislation which has become the subject of considerable controversy. I am referring to the role of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC. The bill also provides for the establishment of the Canadian endangered species conservation council, which is to be comprised of the ministers of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans and Canadian Heritage, together with their provincial and territorial counterparts. The primary role of COSEWIC is to provide general direction on the activities of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada.

The Canadian Alliance believes that the general functions of COSEWIC in its relationship to parliament are sound and should be supported. COSEWIC will function as an independent, arm's length scientific body, will develop reviews and annual assessments on the status of wildlife species and will report and provide advice to the minister and the Canadian endangered species conservation council. While COSEWIC will provide guidance to parliament with respect to determining species protection priorities, it is impractical to suggest that COSEWIC should have the final say in the funding of those priorities.

There are those who would suggest that this view is inconsistent with the position of policy based on sound science. However, since COSEWIC has no real taxation powers, it therefore has no real tax revenue or spending authority. I want to make it clear that the Canadian Alliance supports an independent scientific listing body such as COSEWIC to provide guidance to parliament to determine priorities for protecting specifies at risk. At the same time we recognize the role of parliament as a spending authority in recovery planning.

I would like to return for a moment to the concept of stewardship initiatives to protect species at risk. I have already mentioned that in its current form Bill C-33 is heavy on punitive measures, yet very light on doing anything to promote meaningful voluntary stewardship initiatives, which have so far been very successful. It is a sad fact that punitive and aggressive environmental laws have often replaced the commitment to co-operation with feelings of antagonism and mistrust among stakeholder groups.

There is no better example of this failed approach to environmental protection than in the area of species and habitat protection legislation. The United Stated Endangered Species Act, 1973, for instance, destroyed the essential relationship between private landowners and conservation groups. When the freedom to manage their property was subsequently taken from them once the conservation objectives had been achieved, no longer were farmers and ranchers prepared to nurture the survival of species at risk.

I have said this before, but I must emphasize this point. As a result of that legislation conservationists lost a valuable working relationship with private landowners. Landowners often lost their property and their livelihoods and species at risk lost the partners they relied up to survive. I believe it is important that Canada learn from this unfortunate U.S. experience.

The U.S. endangered species act also places a disproportionate share of the financial burden of habitat protection on private landowners and has caused these landowners to lose substantial portions of economic use of their land. In the face of such disincentives, U.S. landowners have begun to take measures to ensure their land is unencumbered by endangered or threatened species.

In order for any Canadian species at risk act to be effective, we must recognize that if protection of species and habitat is a common good then it must also be a common responsibility.

It should be noted that the most remarkable conservation success stories of this century were achieved through the willing co-operation of private owners. If voluntary stewardship efforts are important to the federal government, existing programs in support of private conservation should be enhanced.

Today I have discussed the path toward protecting species at risk. As I said at the beginning, this debate over the proposed species at risk act is not about who cares more about the environment. Caring is only what motivates us to work together to find solutions. This is a debate about what policies can best accommodate the needs of stakeholders involved and provide the best incentives for all Canadians to become active stewards of the land.

I am hoping that throughout the process of this debate, especially as we get into the committee stage where we have the chance to really address the bill and hear from a number of other stakeholders that I have addressed throughout my speech, the government will consider in strengthening the parts of the legislation to bring all stakeholders together.

It is my hope and it is the hope of the Canadian Alliance that in general, as was mentioned, the particular legislation on endangered species is a theme in legislation that can be embraced by Canadians across the country. It is something that most Canadians would like to see put in place. As I mentioned, it becomes an issue of fairness. It should become an issue of trying to put legislation in the House that brings people together.

I have said on occasions prior to this debate that we often see legislation introduced in the House by the government that is weak and that divides Canadians. Here is another perfect example of that. Even in talking with conservation groups and talking with a number of other stakeholders who want to see the legislation embraced by all parts of society, they all agree the commitment the government has made not only in its Speech from the Throne but throughout discussions on environment in the past comes up very weak, especially when we look at the funds allocated to the environment in the particular area of endangered species and in other areas of the environment.

I cannot stress the point enough that when it comes to putting a balanced approach in the legislation, legislation that can succeed in including all stakeholders, compensation has to be the key. It is something that environmental groups want to see, especially when it comes to building effective recovery plans that involve private landowners and other groups involved in dealing with and managing land. It is about putting aside proper compensation, especially for private landowners who will through the goodness of their hearts and in the goodness of pushing forward a successful endangered species recovery agenda, to ensure that they are compensated effectively in that sort of equation.

That is the only thing that is missing from the particular legislation, especially when it comes to bringing those groups together. I mentioned at the top of my speech and later about how particular types of legislation are introduced in this place that divide Canadians and divide stakeholders. I wish the government would listen and start to make the changes that could bring all these groups together. When I talk to the various stakeholders there is no question that they seem to be all on the same page and they want to see the same things. They want to see results in protecting endangered species.

As I was mentioning, I hope we get to committee stage and look at ways that as Canadians in this place we can create legislation that is good, legislation that can be improved and legislation that can bring various stakeholders together. I hope we have the spirit that all stakeholders want, the spirit to bring people together and through treating people fairly achieve that goal.

Sometimes in committee and even in this place we tend to get our backs up and revert to partisan politics. But I am confident there is nothing partisan about endangered species and nothing partisan about protecting endangered species. As Canadians in this place especially in showing leadership to the stakeholders who want to be involved with this process, we can make changes to this legislation which I am confident will make everyone happy and have a unified voice in moving forward with endangered species issues.

On that final note, it is the hope of the Canadian Alliance to have a plan that truly protects species at risk. I hope that in this place we will show that leadership and that the minister and the committee will show that leadership as we get to the stage to make amendments to this legislation to make it stronger.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at second reading to Bill C-33, the Species at Risk Act.

Before starting my remarks, I would like to briefly put the bill in context. Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the evolution of the earth over 4.5 billion years. This evolutionary process created a wide selection of living organisms and natural environments on our planet. Together they form the ecosystems we know today, and each one plays a specific role in the food chain and contributes to the biological balance of the planet.

However, for some years, scientists have been warning about the disappearance of certain species in increasing numbers, as well as the rise in the number of species facing extinction or extremely vulnerable species.

The decrease or degradation of the biological diversity concerns us all and could have unpredictable consequences for our environment. Over the past few years, in Canada, as elsewhere in the world, efforts have been undertaken to try to slow down this process. Starting in the 1970s, international conventions were signed limiting the trade of certain animal and vegetal species in order to protect them from extinction.

Cases in point include the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as a Waterfowl Habitat, better known as the RAMSAR Convention. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, more commonly known as CITES, was signed in 1973. In 1979, there was the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

In 1992, at the Rio summit—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member who was talking, but I understand that she will be speaking until today's adjournment. I must interrupt her because I have a notice to give the House.

Income Tax Amendments Act, 1999

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, following negotiations earlier today and previously, an agreement could not be reached under Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-25, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 1999.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting of the House a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[Some hon. members]

Shame.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Species At Risk Act

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me continue from where I was.

In 1992, at the Rio summit, many nations of the world, including Canada, signed the Convention on Biological Diversity and made the commitment to adopt or maintain the necessary legislative and regulatory provisions to protect species and distinct populations at risk.

Soon after that, in their red book, the Liberals promised to ensure long term protection of species that live on our planet. In 1995, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, then Minister of the Environment, introduced a first bill in that spirit. That bill gave rise to an incredible amount of protest and criticism, mainly from environmental groups.

One of the main objections to the bill had to do with the fact that the legislation would only apply to federal territories. Only four provinces, including Quebec, had a law on endangered species. Environmental groups argued that it was essential that the federal government legislate for the whole country.

In 1996, the federal government laid before the provincial and territorial environment ministers a Canadian Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.

In October 1996, the ministers responsible for wildlife approved the accord in principle. Even though he signed the agreement, David Cliche, Quebec's Minister for the Environment, issued an independent press release, in which he said clearly that he could not remain indifferent to the fact that this accord opened the door to overlapping between federal and provincial legislation, and that a close eye would have to be kept on events.

Just a few weeks later, the federal government, through the then Minister of the Environment, Sergio Marchi, introduced Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction, which was the forerunner of Bill C-33 now before the House.

I do not know whether this government is responsible or not, but I do know that at the time it was criticized by the provinces for the very broad powers it was assuming for the protection of wildlife species. Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories expressed deep concerns about the concept of cross-border species and the powers defined in the bill.

Many criticized the minister's about-face when he introduced his bill and said the exact opposite of what he had stated a few weeks earlier—funny how this government keeps doing this—about wanting to improve harmony between the provinces instead of imposing standards. The Liberals let Bill C-65 die on the order paper.

They are now bringing this issue back on the forefront, by introducing a so-called improved bill. Improved how? Improved with regard to provincial jurisdictions?

It is important to indicate that some federal legislation, like the Fisheries Act or the National Parks Act, allows the federal government to step in to protect some species, but there is no federal legislation directly dealing with that specific purpose.

If passed, Bill C-33 would be the first Canadian legal instrument directly concerned with the protection of endangered species.

Since pollution and migratory species know no boundaries, co-operation is required at the international level, as it is also, on a lower scale, at the national level. Canada federalism calls for co-operation between the provinces on this issue, since this is an area of shared jurisdiction in Canada. It is important to protect endangered species in Canada.

It is estimated that close to 70,000 known species have their habitat in Canada, many of which are found only in Canada. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, has designated 340 wildlife species as at risk in Canada. This organization established in 1978 is composed of representatives from every government agency, province and territory, as well as four national conservation agencies. It is the main player in the protection of species and it is responsible for establishing an index of the endangered species in Canada.

The COSEWIC indicated that, of the 340 wildlife species considered at risk in Canada, 12 are now extinct, 15 are extirpated species or no longer exist in the wild in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 are threatened and 151 are vulnerable, which means that there are concerns about these species. Of the 97 species whose status was reassessed in recent years, 26 are now closer to becoming extinct. This was one of the findings in a guide to the Species at Risk Act published by the Government of Canada and released by the Department of Environment on April 11, 2000.

Needless to say that without appropriate legislation, be it federal or provincial, without enforcement measures and adequate resources, the COSEWIC initiatives are insignificant and their impact is limited. With the increase in the number of species facing extinction, the problem is serious. Consequently, we must adopt effective measures.

But does Bill C-33 really provide an additional protection that is enforceable? Will it really do something to improve the protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of them?

I would like to address the issues involved here, according to the Bloc Quebecois. Despite the summary indication in the preamble about the shared responsibility for protecting endangered species, the bill's wording does not reflect this. It does not reflect reality, i.e. the fact that the main thrust of habitat protection is provincial.

Everything in fact suggests that the minister holds the power—and I say power advisedly—to impose his vision of protection on the provinces when he deems it necessary. In other words, his legislation will take de facto precedence over existing provincial legislation, even if the habitats fall solely under provincial jurisdiction.

Clause 10 stipulates that the minister “may—enter into an agreement—with respect to the administration of any provision of this Act”.

More precisely, in the section on general prohibitions, it is clearly stated in clause 34(2) that:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33 apply in lands in a province that are not federal lands—

What is more, it is indicated that if the minister deems that the law of a province—clause 34(3)—or of a territory—35(3)—does not protect the species, he must recommend to the governor in council that an order be made.

Granted, clauses 34(4)( a ) and 35(4)( a ) provide that “Before recommending the Governor in Council make an order under sub-section 2, the Minister must consult the appropriate provincial minister”. However, the bill only refers to consultation. The bill seems to say implicitly that in the case of disagreement, the opinion of the federal government will prevail.

As well, through clause 36, the bill forces the provinces who identify some species as threatened species not listed as endangered species by COSEWIC to apply the same restrictions to their own species as those imposed on designated species.

By doing so, the federal government is assuming the right to impose its own way of protecting species. Members of the Bloc are not convinced that constraints and fines would always be the avenues privileged by a province.

In terms of the recovery strategy, the terminology chosen also raises concerns in regard to the jurisdiction of provinces in that area. Clause 39 reads that “to the extent possible”, the recovery strategy must be prepared in co-operation with the provincial minister. I repeat, “to the extent possible”.

Action plans referred to in clauses 47 and 48 raise a similar concern. More particularly, the whole part of the bill dealing more directly with the critical habitat, namely clauses 57 to 64, allows the government to establish codes of practice and to impose national standards or guidelines, even if the federal government has no control over most of the territories concerned and no power over the management of resources on those lands.

Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the division of powers as stated in the Constitution and as interpreted over the years. This bill truly interferes in an area under provincial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces from any real and direct input into the process. Existing legislation is totally ignored.

It is true that the protection of species can only be effective if habitats are also protected, but it is the responsibility of the provinces to manage these issues in co-operation with the various stakeholders.

Even though the minister supports, theoretically, the shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces with regard to the protection of species, in reality, first, he disregards the division of powers and the provinces' responsibility with regard to the management of habitats and the protection of species; second, he ignores existing legislation; and, third, he assumes very broad powers with regard to the protection of species.

By acting this way, the federal government is going against true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government.

I will say a few words about the position of environmental groups and industry. Most environmental groups are opposed to the bill proposed by the Minister of the Environment. Those who should be his allies in any attempt to improve the protection of wildlife species find this bill totally useless and even dangerous.

Indeed, there has been much protest and criticism since the minister introduced his bill. Most stakeholders find the bill too weak. Even organizations representing the industry feel that the bill will not provide greater protection for species or specify the appropriate approach to protecting species living on a site under development.

Representatives of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and of the Mining Association of Canada indicated that the government “could have taken a much stronger approach concerning federal land and natural areas, where constitutional jurisdiction is not challenged”. It must be noted that, in its present form, Bill C-33 is a bit scary for the representatives of certain industries, who believe that the compensation issues are insufficiently defined, as the representative of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association said. As for the representative of the Mining Association of Canada, he said that the fines and legal proceedings were excessive in cases where a species was not deliberately killed.

However, the main problem that seems to be raised by all environmental groups is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be taken by the minister and his cabinet, and not by scientists. This has led many activists, such as the president of the Canadian Campaign for Endangered Species, to state that Bill C-33 was a “dismal failure” and that it will not ensure the protection of Canadian species.

Others, like one of the lawyers of the Sierra Club, made more qualified statements, but still denounced the weakness of the legislation and described as disgraceful the fact that such a discretionary power with respect to the designation of species be granted to politicians.

The minister is being criticized for resorting to a piecemeal approach dictated by cabinet, instead of a set of gentle measures promoting negotiation, but supported by compelling legal measures if an agreement cannot be reached.

Ignoring the issue of the division of responsibilities, environmentalists maintain that the federal government can and must get involved to legislate over all the lands, including provincial lands, to adequately protect migrating species. They add that only protecting the natural habitat of these species is not enough and that the whole critical habitat must be protected.

I will now outline the Government of Quebec's position on Bill C-33. As soon as the federal Minister of the Environment introduced his bill, his Quebec counterpart, Paul Bégin, said that the proposed legislation was just another example of useless duplication for Quebec.

Indeed, the Quebec minister indicated that Bill C-33 introduced by the federal government sought not only to create a safety net for endangered species and their habitat on federal lands, but also on the whole Quebec territory.

As mentioned earlier, while it may be appropriate for the federal government to legislate to protect migrating species, but this government has no constitutional authority regarding the management of habitats on provincial lands. The Quebec government cannot accept that the federal government infringe upon areas of provincial jurisdiction and dictate to Quebec how to protect its ecosystems when Quebec already has its own legislation protecting endangered species and their habitats.

Mr. Bégin said:

—Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and flora species and intends to keep on exercising its authority in this matter. We will never accept an umbrella piece of legislation covering all the initiatives in this area.

I was quoting from the press release regarding the federal legislation on wildlife species at risk in Canada released by the Quebec government on April 11, 2000 and which was issued by the office of the Minister of the Environment.

The Quebec government believes an act such as Bill C-33 would be acceptable if it excluded any species or habitat under provincial jurisdiction and applied to a province or territory only if this province or territory had explicitly asked that it did.

The Quebec government would not need to resort to such a provision since it passed its own legislation on the issue in the 1980s. Indeed, Quebec passed an act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in 1989, and it has its own act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife as well as fishery regulations.

These three acts give Quebec the means to identify species at risk, designate them legally as threatened or vulnerable species, protect their habitat, and implement recovery plans to adequately protect endangered species and habitats.

I would like to state the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Since species are disappearing more rapidly, the problem is serious, and we must take effective action.

But does Bill-33 really provide additional protection? Will this bill really improve the protection of ecosystems and of their endangered species? We think that the answer to these two questions is no.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but she will have 14 minutes to complete her remarks the next time the bill is called.

It being 6.30 p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)