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.