Mr. Speaker, I am very happy today to speak to Bill C-33, but more specifically to the amendment proposed by my Progressive Conservative colleague from Fundy—Royal. First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of this amendment which is proposing that this bill be hoisted for six months.
Why? I think that we must give a brief history of the struggle to save the endangered species. In 1995, there was a first bill sponsored by the present Minister of Canadian Heritage. Nevertheless, this bill caused such an uproar that it had to be withdrawn.
Before the election of 1997, Sergio Marchi introduced Bill C-65, which can be considered as the ancestor of Bill C-33. The protests were as vigorous as for the preceding bill. The federal government was then criticized by the provinces for the sweeping powers that it gave itself as far as the protection of endangered species is concerned. The Liberals allowed Bill C-65 to die on the order paper and are now bringing the matter of endangered species up again with Bill C-33, which is supposed to be better, according to them.
It is clear that we must ensure better protection for endangered species. Still, we need to ask ourselves whether Bill C-33 really offers an additional, enforceable protection. Is this bill really going to contribute to improving the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered species in those ecosystems?
Since my speech was interrupted last time, I had an opportunity to read the hansard and I would like to comment on some interesting points raised by the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona, of the Canadian Alliance.
He made a very interesting analogy, which is a good illustration of what I want to say. He compared Bill C-33 to a wall rather than a bridge between various stakeholders. Rather than tapping into the scientific knowledge of researchers and the general population, the federal government is trying to go it alone with its bill. Instead of calling upon outside knowledge, the government is acting alone, as if it had the monopoly on truth.
Several provisions of Bill C-33 show evidence of that. Members can find many provisions in Bill C-33 that say “To the extent possible, the responsible minister will seek the support of provincial and territorial ministers”. That is right, “to the extent possible”.
What I deplore in this regard, as the hon. member from the Canadian Alliance did, is that there is nothing set in stone. The obligation to seek support is not an essential condition to the implementation of this act. The federal government might very well act alone and not seek any support.
In the same vein, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment said that “where voluntary measures do not work, other governments are unwilling or unable to act, the federal safety net will be invoked.”
This means many things. These words are, to say the least, ambiguous coming from a government that limits itself to rhetoric, as the Minister of Environment said before the Standing Committee on the Environment 15 days ago. However, when this rhetoric is put into a bill, the cat finally comes out of the bag. The Big Boss, the Minister of Environment, complacently believes that he is the only one to possess the truth. For his benefit, I will quote Albert Camus, who once wrote “the need to be right is the greatest of weaknesses”.
Last week, an answer given by the minister made me smile. Answering my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona, he said “That party—the Canadian Alliance—not that it understands the constitution, should understand that there are certain areas of provincial jurisdiction that we should respect. It does not, but we do”. How ironic—and I would use another word without hesitation, if it were not unparliamentary.
In the Liberal terminology, the definition of the provincial governments' will to act could lead to confusion. In fact, they do not define the word will as I do. The federal government could tell the Quebec government that it will have to protect without delay 150 species at an excessive cost that Quebec may not be able to afford. By putting Quebec in front of an impossible task, the Liberals could tell people “See, Quebec refuses to act”. And then what would happen? The federal government would intrude in a provincial jurisdiction.
Even though the preamble says that jurisdiction over the protection of species is shared, that is not reflected in the provisions of the bill, which itself does not reflect reality, which is that protection of habitats is essentially a provincial responsibility.
In fact, everything leads us to believe that the minister has the authority to impose his vision of the protection of species at risk on the provinces when he sees fit. In other words, the bill will have de facto precedence over existing provincial legislation, even where habitats are totally under provincial jurisdiction.
I would also like to point out the duplicity of Liberal members who tried to promote and make us accept Bill C-33. They even invited professor Robert Kennedy Jr. who shared his vision of environmental policies, a centralizing vision giving all powers to the federal government.
Needless to say, he was quick to refer to Bill C-33. I find it regrettable that a foreigner, who incidentally is an intelligent and respected person, was asked to interfere like that in Canadian affairs.
As I said, a policy requiring the various levels of government to co-operate is much more appropriate to solve environmental issues. Provincial governments are in a much better position to know about regional issues than federal public servants.
I deplore the fact that the Quebec government's specific character is not being taken into consideration when it comes to the protection of species at risk. Moreover, this specificity is not exclusive to Quebec, as other provincial governments already have such legislation. Quebec's legislation on species at risk has been in effect for nearly ten years and it works very well.
It would seem, although I hope with all my heart that this will not be another clash between Quebec and Canada, that Bill C-33 is not a response to Quebec's success. The federal government is jealous of our progressive legislation and is trying to take it over. Why is the federal government interfering in jurisdictions where it has no business?
The federal government's petty attitude is all too apparent. I remind the Liberals that, after the 1995 referendum, they passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. If they were consistent, they would not be trying to interfere like this in the jurisdictions of the provinces and of Quebec.
In the words of the poet Paul Verlaine:
My visage pale My heart gone cold I hear the clock And pine for old Familiar days. But helpless in
The winds of ill I drift along And feel the chill. A battered leaf Adrift and lost.
So much for the promises of the federalists. Like a dead leaf buffeted by the autumn winds, they cry over lost dreams and pin their hopes on spring.
If the stormy weather continues for the federal government, what spring might bring is a new country called Quebec.
I would also remind government members that most environmental groups are also opposed to Bill C-33. Those who should by rights be the government's allies consider this a dangerous and unnecessary bill.
In fact, the Minister of the Environment has been inundated by protests and criticism since the bill was introduced. Most stakeholders think that Bill C-33 does not have enough teeth. Even organizations representing industry feel that the bill does not provide increased protection for species, nor does it make clear what they need to do to protect species living within their areas of operation.
Representatives of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and of the Mining Association of Canada have indicated that the government should have adopted a firmer approach on the issue of federal lands and natural areas where its constitutional responsibility is not questioned.
It is worth noting that, in its present state, Bill C-33 scares representatives of some industries who think the issues of compensation are insufficiently defined and who find the fines and prosecutions excessive in cases where the species has not been killed deliberately.
However, the main problem raised by environmental groups seems to stem from the fact that decisions concerning the listing of species will be taken at the discretion of the minister and the Cabinet and not by scientists. For that reason, some activists say that C-33 is a total failure and that it will not protect Canadian species.
Some others, like the lawyers of the Sierra Club, qualify their assertions but still deplore the weakness of the legislation and the ignominy of giving to politicians such discretionary power over the listing of species.
My criticism of the Minister of the Environment lies with his piecemeal approach, evaluated at the discretion of Cabinet and supported by legal and binding recourse if no agreement can be reached, instead of an overall approach that favours negotiation.
I repeat, the principle of providing greater protection to endangered species is one the Bloc Quebecois supports readily. However, Bill C-33 is not the best way of doing it. Because of intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction, we oppose it.
While we recognize that responsibility for the environment is shared between the federal government and the provinces, we think the federal government is ignoring this fact.
Instead of assuming its important responsibilities, it prefers instead to take over jurisdictions that do not belong to it.
Instead of dealing with toxic substances, MOX, GMOs, the biosafety protocol and contaminated soils, it prefers to create useless overlap.
For all these reasons, and I could cite others, we believe the government should go and do its homework and propose a new bill, in six months, that will lend itself more to a consensus with environmentalists and the opposition.
The job of defending and protecting the environment has become extremely difficult at a time of triumphant economism and unbridled productivism. There has never been so much confusion between growth and development. There was no call to add Canadian nation building for the purposes of centralization. Bill C-33 illustrates once again that only the appetite of the most voracious predators equals Ottawa's appetite for power.
Therefore I am pleased to support the amendment proposed by my colleague from Fundy—Royal. I invite all members of this House to do likewise, in fact, I implore them to do so.