Debates of June 12th, 2000

The House resumed from May 5 consideration of the motion.

Labelling Of Genetically Modified Foods

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Mitis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion No. 230, introduced by my colleague from Louis-Hébert.

For the benefit of those following this important debate, I will reread the motion as introduced:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should make labelling of genetically modified foods compulsory, and should carry out exhaustive studies on the long-term effects of these foods on health and the environment.

The federal government has a duty, as far as food is concerned, to inform and protect the public. The public has concerns about genetically modified organisms, which in the rest of my speech I will call GMOs, and the federal government therefore has a duty to inform and protect the public. The government cannot continue to wash its hands of what is happening, like Pontius Pilate.

It would be too easy to once again bow to the pressures and lobbies of the multinationals and not to worry about the worries, questions and concerns of a public which does not know whom to trust and is desperately calling upon its government to protect it from the feared invader.

The public is asking itself a number of questions, for instance: why are plants and foods being genetically modified? To whose advantage is it? What is in it for the consumer? What effects do GMOs have on health and on the environment? What effects will they have on agriculture, on the economy, on trade? What are the social consequences of the introduction of GMOs?

I cannot address all of these questions in the time allotted to me. Let us be clear, therefore. Right now, GMOs offer consumers no advantage. They offer only uncertainties.

Consumers are entitled to exercise an enlightened choice in purchasing their food. To be able to do so, they need proper labelling so they have access to a wide variety of products without fear that they may contain elements that might cause them concern about their health.

Eating habits have significantly changed in recent years. In addition, everyone should have the information necessary to buy their food in accordance with their culture, that is their lifestyle or eating habits: foods that are organic, fat free or not genetically modified.

A number of polls conducted since 1994 reveal between 80% and 95% of the public strongly support labelling GMOs. More recent polls in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada have revealed that people would be prepared to pay a little more for food that is not genetically modified or would prefer food slightly less beautiful or fresh, but not genetically modified.

Members of the different parties have tabled petitions in the House from all over the country calling for the labelling of GMOs. The Bloc alone has collected to date 43,000 signatures calling for a bill on the compulsory labelling of GMOs. The minister of agriculture has himself received petitions from several thousand individuals and many letters asking him to make GMO labelling mandatory.

How can the government, which is getting ready to call an election to ask voters to renew its mandate, turn such a deaf ear to these requests, which are increasingly specific, justified and numerous? How can the government continue to ignore the public and to thumb its nose at it regarding the GMO issue?

The accurate and thorough labelling of food products would allow us to identify GMOs and to withdraw them from the market, should problems occur.

From a commercial point of view, the monitoring of GMOs could allow agricultural producers to maintain access to export markets by meeting the national standards in effect in many European and Asian countries.

I want to say a word on the need for research on the long term effects of GMOs, including in the areas of health and the environment.

It is the federal government's responsibility to ensure food quality and safety. The government cannot ignore this responsibility and must, to fully assume it, conduct studies on the long term effects of GMOs on health and the environment.

So far, preliminary studies on GMOs have shown that these products have harmful effects on rats, butterflies and bacteria. Of course, these results do not allow us to conclude that GMOs necessarily pose a threat to human beings. However, these results mean that the government should go further in its research, particularly in the area of foods for human consumption.

The use of genes from various species in foods generates concerns about food allergies. There is a possibility that the resistance to antibiotics found in certain GMOs may spread to other forms of life in nature.

Genetically modified seeds can pollinate plants in neighbouring fields simply because of the wind, insects and animals.

The transmission of resistance to herbicides and insecticides could create super weeds or super insects, which would invade the fields and take the place of rare or more vulnerable species.

The presence of GMOs in an environment where neighbouring farms are operated by organic farmers could contaminate their fields and cause them to lose their certification.

Do members realize the kind of dilemma the public servant who, in the course of an evaluation, discovers that the products were contaminated by GMOs will be facing? Will he keep quiet or will he withdraw the organic farm's certification?

Obviously, with regard to GMOs, there are too many questions and not enough answers. Workers in Quebec and Canada pay enough taxes each year for the government to take their concerns seriously and to put in the required funding for research so we can learn more on the subject.

Dr. Clark said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The scientific community is divided on the effects of the introduction of genetically modified plants into environment.

For many researchers, the scientific debate boils down to a lack of concrete evidence and sufficient data that prevents us from stating that GMOs are harmless. For others, the debate is about methodologies, scientific assertions and the objectivity of the criteria and parameters used by companies and governments to measure the impact of genetically modified plants.

All this to say that an incorrect assumption will produce a false result, and this result is being used to increase acceptance of new GMOs.

The questions are serious, but the answers are long in coming. The future of agriculture, the environment, health problems and biodiversity are the main factors that we as parliamentarians must consider as we face the intrusion of GMOs into our lives.

In conclusion, the motion before us this morning, which is in its second hour, is intended to get members thinking. It favours a preventive approach or a moratorium on GMOs, as long as procedures are not transparent and understood by the general public, and as long as labelling is not compulsory, so that consumers can make their own decisions about what they eat.

Despite all the uncertainty regarding GMOs and the absence of scientific studies with respect to their long-term effects, and despite the clear desire of the public for mandatory labelling of GMOs, the federal government is sticking to a policy of voluntary labelling, leaving the decision up to companies. The stand it is taking internationally is primarily trade-oriented, and does not take sufficient account of issues of health, agriculture and environmental protection.

The federal government should review its position or it will pay the price in the next election.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Motion No. 230. The motion calls for the compulsory labelling of genetically modified foods and for exhaustive study on the long term effect of these foods.

My constituents and I share the concerns being address in this motion. In fact, on behalf of the constituents I represent in Surrey Central, B.C., I presented a similar private member's motion on October 15, 1999. My Motion No. 204 called on the government to require foods to be labelled so that Canadians could have a choice before consuming these products.

The issue here is choice and informed choice. We want to be able to choose what we are going to eat or what we put into our bodies. People not only want to know what they have the right to know, they do not want to guess what they are eating. That is not too much to ask. Many of my constituents have contacted me to express those views.

When I was serving as the official opposition deputy health critic, I received a great deal of information concerning this matter. While on a trip to Australia I came across some newspaper articles which contained ample information. That was at a time when this parliament did not have any debate, but the rest of the world was talking about these issues. My motion was aimed at having some sort of debate in the House.

I would like to read part of a letter I received from two of my constituents, Mike Koolen and Heather Fox. They wrote:

I do not think that enough study has been done to prove that genetically engineered foods are safe for the environment or for human health. I find it appalling that our government is willing to turn its population into guinea pigs.

I have the right to choose what I will eat and I am against our government taking away my right to choose between food...

As such, I want to add my voice to that of other Canadians who are pushing for the right to choose what we eat.

These remarks are indicative of the kinds of fears that have been instilled in people's minds as a result of the technological advances in the way we grow the food we eat.

Let me for a moment look at the positive side of genetically modified foods. For years and years we have traditionally used genetic modification to improve foods, crops and animals. As an example, I think of new varieties of garden corn which have a short growing time and which can grow in a cool climate. These are early ripening varieties. As you now, Madam Speaker, strawberries grown in your part of Quebec are very susceptible to cold but genetically altered varieties have been used for a long time so that they are not susceptible to cold. They can tolerate cold.

We now have the capability at the microscopic level to manipulate the genetic tree, and we have been doing it for years and years. We have the ability of intervention at the molecular level. We are even capable of taking DNA from one species and linking it with the DNA of another species. There are some scientific concerns on this issue and some scientific debate.

Today's debate is timely and worthwhile. On the positive side, genetic engineering could give us seeds and crops that would not require pesticides or herbicides. Most people concerned about the environment would say that is positive.

I was astonished to read that about 200,000 people die just because of a deficiency in nutrients, particularly vitamin A. Science has now given us the tools to produce enough food to feed the earth's population and to make quality foods that meet the vitamin and mineral requirements.

We could also seed land that is less fertile to bear crops and be productive. Those are just some of the potential benefits but not all.

Let us look at the negative side. What do individuals see as potential hazards in this area? There are potential hazards, of course, from eating or being around such genetically modified foods but the effects on the human organism are yet unknown. We could have wild strains overwhelming some of our natural strains, having unsuspected effects on domestic plants. On this scientific debate there is some legitimate argument on both sides and we should be open to those discussions and arguments. There is much we do not know about the long term effects.

I believe that the consumer who has a concern about genetically modified foods should have that information available. I also believe that people who do not want to take genetically modified foods into the body, such as a crop, a cereal or a product, should have that choice.

Where is the problem? It is technically very difficult to label all genetically modified foods. For instance, pasta has constituents that come from various sources and a genetically modified component would be very difficult to isolate. Even in the food processing plants where juice is extracted from foods, it is very difficult to isolate some of the different loads coming from different farms. I am not saying that it could not be done but it would be very difficult.

It may be better to label food that is free of genetic modifications rather than all those that have genetically modified components in them. We want some kind of labelling so consumers have the right choice.

Rather than doing it the other way around, it could be done in an easier and more economical way so that consumers do not have to pay for the expenses and, at the same time, it serves the purpose. It is just an idea. This would give those who want to make a choice the ability to do so. Those who do not want to have the pesticides, herbicides or certain genes in their growing process could choose that strain.

The mandatory component of the motion we are considering today is something that smacks of bureaucracy and of people telling us what to do. I favour small where small will do when it comes to bureaucracy. I would much prefer a process driven by the market.

I have learned that some businesses have voluntarily started separating or labelling these products. For example, Loblaws has quietly made plans to stock its first genetically modified free products in some stores. It will have separate shelves. It will have genetically modified foods on one shelf and genetically modified free foods on another shelf. It will be similar for modern foods. Loblaws has also indicated interest by stating that its genetically modified free products and its genetically modified products would be separated.

As an individual, I would much prefer a process driven by the market. I could then choose foods that are not genetically modified. That is the process I would choose.

The issue of science is where I think we should try not to be political. It should be based on pure science, not on politics or fearmongering. Good science is science that can stand close, careful scrutiny. Therefore the principle that I would use on this issue is to make the consumer aware by giving them information based on scientific fact and letting them make the choice.

The issue of a long term study that my colleague suggested also makes eminent sense.

In conclusion I would like to say that consumers not only want to have the choice but they have the right to have the choice based on scientific evidence.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like once again to congratulate the hon. member for Louis-Hébert for moving this motion in the House. This is a very important issue for all Canadians and I appreciate having the opportunity to discuss it again.

This motion addresses two very important aspects of the question of genetically modified foods. It calls for mandatory labelling of all food products, in part or in whole, to be labelled. That is a matter which is totally supported by members of the New Democratic caucus. We have indicated our support in this debate pursuant to this motion as well as by the introduction of our own motion within the last couple of weeks in parliament.

We do believe, as the member for the Canadian Alliance has just indicated, that this is a matter of choice. It is about giving consumers the right to make decisions about what is in the best interest of their own health and well-being. To us it is a fundamental question around which there should be no dispute.

The second part of the motion is just as important as the question of labelling, which is the investment by government into research and science to determine the long term impact of genetically modified organisms on our health, on our soil, on our environment and on our society generally. That is an area I want to focus in on this morning because it is an area where we can see the most significant neglect on the part of the federal Liberal government.

In addressing this subject, I would also like to point out that it is one thing for the Alliance to suggest that we should have labelled foods and that we should provide information on genetically modified products, but it cannot be rationalized in in an overall policy context if in fact this party does not understand the investment required in Health Canada. It cannot in the same breath suggest that Health Canada can be cut back further and that in fact, this whole move toward deregulation and offloading of responsibilities outside of the purview of the federal government can be tolerated. One cannot on the one hand speak for a proactive position on the part of government in terms of informing consumers and on the other hand not acknowledge the role of government in ensuring the safety of food in the marketplace today.

It is absolutely important for us in the House today to call upon members of the Canadian Alliance to revisit their position of supporting industry's agenda to reduce the role of government and in fact allow for products to go on the market without any guarantees of safety. That, in our view, is absolutely unacceptable, intolerable and must be addressed.

I will get back to the federal government's responsibility in terms of genetically modified foods. In the course of these debates over the last couple of months in the House, we have heard that this government has been very vigilant and has taken every step possible to ensure that any products that have been genetically modified and on the market have been tested and proven to be safe.

That is not the case. There is no basis in fact for that kind of statement. What we are dealing with yet again, when it comes to the federal government and health care, is a wonderful act of illusory politics. This is a case of absolutely creating the appearance of action when there is no evidence to support those kinds of statements.

I want to point to couple of examples to make that case. All of us will recall back in 1997 when the present health minister was appointed. His first action was to kill the drug research lab and to cause the loss forever of the only independent research body in government when it comes to drugs. The government was also on the verge of dismantling the food research lab. Except for the outcry of 200 scientists and many consumers across the country, the government would have proceeded down that path.

Many of the labs in the food research purview of government were closed. The government and the health minister promised to open some of those labs. In 1997 the health minister issued a public release saying that he would open a number of labs that had been closed which were important to the protection of Canadians when it came to the safety of the foods they eat, including a lab to study the development of methods for the detection of genetically modified organisms.

This was promised in 1997. Today it is June 2000 and no such lab has been reopened. No orders have been given by the health minister to resume this important work. Our health protection branch continues to operate on an underresourced and understaffed basis, without any significant focus to the long term impact of genetically modified foods on the health and well-being of Canadians.

I am not sure how Liberals across the way are not up in arms over this kind of development. I hope that after today they will put all the pressure they can on the health minister to live up to his commitments, because we do not have that kind of capacity in the government today.

Let me also mention to members of the House that when we have tried to get to the bottom of the statements indicating that massive research is being done and all these protections are being taken, there are no details provided and no information forthcoming to show that this is actually the case.

I resorted to an order for return to get information about what the government was doing in terms of research on genetically modified foods. As of October 19, 1999, the government has reported that there is “currently one ongoing research project on a topic related to genetically modified foods with a planned expenditure in 1999-2000 of $166,389”.

That is the sum total of the government's commitment to long term, scientific based, independent research into the whole impact of genetically modified foods. The government cannot get away with trying to tell the people of Canada that foods are safe when it has taken no steps to offer those protections.

Instead, what do we get? We get a propaganda machine that kicks into place to try to persuade Canadians that everything is safe and not to worry. We get a little coloured leaflet that goes to every door in the country at a cost of about $25 million containing a blatant, incorrect statement. I know I cannot speak any more strongly in terms of parliamentary language to indicate just how inaccurate the information is, but it makes the statement that everything on the market basically is safe. I will quote from the booklet:

Before any product derived from biotechnology can be marketed in Canada, the government of Canada requires that it undergo thorough laboratory and field testing.

That is not true. That research is not done. It has not been done and it is not being done now.

The point of the debate today is to say government has a responsibility to ensure within government that there are laboratories, scientists and independent capabilities to do ongoing, indepth research and investigation into the impacts of genetically modified products. It is a disservice to the Canadian people to pretend otherwise.

I see my time is almost up. There is so much more to say, but if there were anything that needs to be said today it is that the government is not being truthful to the people of Canada. It owes it to the people of Canada, especially in the wake of Walkerton, to do everything possible to ensure that the food we eat, the water we drink and the drugs we have to take are safe beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is not the case now and it is incumbent upon the government to take charge of the issue, to reinvest in our scientific capacity in the health protection branch and to take every step possible to ensure that all genetically modified products on the market are safe beyond a reasonable doubt. That is leadership. That is ensuring that the health and well-being of Canadians come first.

[Ian Murray, Liberal, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to respond to Motion No. 230. The motion of the hon. member for Louis-Hébert has two parts. The first would make labelling of genetically modified products compulsory. The motion also calls for the government to carry out “exhaustive studies on the long term effects of genetically modified foods”.

Let me begin by saying that the Government of Canada's commitment is always to safety first. The well-being of Canadians, animals and our environment is our highest priority. Canada has an enviable reputation around the world for the safety of its food and the rigour of its food inspection system. Canadians rightly trust the regulatory system which has been vigilant in ensuring that our high standards are maintained.

On the question of labelling of foods, our federal legislation calls for Health Canada to set the requirements for mandatory labelling. The data requirements for the safety assessments of all foods are established by Health Canada, which also conducts premarket reviews of new foods including those derived through biotechnology. Every such food goes through a stringent review process before being allowed on the market.

The role of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, is to carry out inspection and enforcement activities relative to the food safety standards set by Health Canada. The CFIA is also responsible for the environmental safety assessment of a number of agricultural products such as plants, animal feed and veterinary vaccines including those derived through biotechnology.

I remind everyone that current labelling regulations in Canada require that all food products, including those developed through biotechnology, be labelled where a potential human health or safety issue has been identified, or if foods have been changed in composition or nutrition.

Labelling decisions are made by Health Canada and are based on the results of its food safety evaluations. I am sure the hon. member would agree any authority for labelling must be based upon science.

Let me address the first part of the motion before us by reminding the House that several initiatives are now already in place to study the question of how and when to label a genetically modified food. The government believes that all food labelling must be credible, meaningful and enforceable. We are actively engaged in consulting with Canadians to score how labelling can best serve the public.

We have strongly encouraged the establishment of a Canadian standard for the labelling of foods derived through biotechnology. This standard will include provisions for definitions, labels, claims and advertising, and compliance measures.

The Canadian General Standards Board, under the sponsorship of the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors, is in the process of developing the standards through open and inclusive consultation. Representatives and individuals from a broad range of Canadian interests have formed a committee to work on the standard, which is expected to be complete within the next six to twelve months. My hon. colleagues should be aware that by endorsing such a thorough process to develop a labelling standard Canada is indeed a leader worldwide.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the House that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has already begun its series of hearings on the labelling of genetically modified foods. Canada is also assuming a leadership role in the development of international standards governing how and when genetically modified foods are labelled.

Canada chairs the Codex Alimentarius committee on food labelling, otherwise known as the CCFL for good reason. At the recent Codex meeting in Ottawa, Canada was recognized for its success in chairing the CCFL working group that drafted key options and recommendations for the labelling of biotechnologically derived foods. Once again Canada has been tasked with leading the group that this year will look at which of these options can be turned into Codex guidelines and then be implemented.

It is clear that work is under way to address the information needs of Canadians on the issue of labelling. We believe that Canadians want labels that are meaningful. It is the goal of the government to ensure that information provided to Canadians enables them to make informed choices. I reiterate that the House should not support Motion No. 230 on the basis of the first part of the motion on labelling.

I will now address the second part of the hon member's motion which recommends that exhaustive studies be carried out on the long term effects of genetically modified foods on health and the environment. The safety assessment of conventional products and of products derived from biotechnology are both subject to stringent health and safety requirements under Canada's food and safety system. I re-emphasize that food safety and consumer protection are priorities for the Government of Canada. We are strongly committed to the safety of Canadians, animals and our environment.

Canada has a strong reputation as a producer of foods that are consistently safe, clean and of high quality. We have built that reputation by putting very rigorous regulatory systems in place. Our approval systems are science based and transparent. The decision of the government to accept or reject a product is based on sound science and fact. Our regulators include experts in nutrition, molecular biology, chemistry, toxicology and environmental science, to name just a few.

There have been recent studies calling into question the safety of biotechnology derived products. We hear a lot of talk about junk science. Canadian regulators do not accept junk science, poor science or half science when evaluating products of biotechnology. The regulatory system assesses products on a case by case basis. The research and safety required for evaluation directly addresses the potential risks of the product to human health and the environment. If there is any question as to the safety of these products they are not approved. The government continually reviews the effectiveness of its approaches.

The Government of Canada takes pride in advocating our science based approach around the world. We rely on the need for scientific research to settle questions related to long term health, safety and environmental issues. We are committed to a regulatory system that meets the highest standards of scientific rigour. This commitment is reflected in the establishment of two important groups, an expert panel and an advisory committee.

The Royal Society of Canada has appointed an expert panel to examine future scientific developments in food biotechnology and to provide advice to the federal government accordingly. This forward thinking body will advise Health Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada on the science capacity that the federal government will need to maintain the safety of new foods being derived through biotechnology in the 21st century.

The Royal Society of Canada named its expert panel this past February. In examining the leading edge of this technology the panel will recommend what new research, policies and regulatory capacity will be needed to ensure the Canadian standards of safety remain as stringent for the next generation of biotechnology derived foods as they are today.

A number of challenges and opportunities are associated with biotechnology that require detailed consideration and public discussion. Food biotechnology presents Canadians with challenges but also unprecedented opportunities.

The recently formed Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee or CBAC will bring stakeholders and interested parties together to advise the government to raise public awareness and to engage Canadians in an open and transparent dialogue on biotechnology issues. Canadians want to take part in the dialogue on food biotechnology. The CBAC will actively create opportunities for Canadians to participate in its activities and discussions. This will include an interactive website for interested Canadians to review, consult and provide input into this topic among many.

The work of the expert panel of the Royal Society of Canada will contribute to a balanced and consultative process where all questions and concerns can be thoroughly considered. The government looks forward to the contributions the expert panel and CBAC will make in furthering the dialogue on biotechnology issues.

I assure the hon. member for Louis-Hébert that the government will continue to undertake the necessary steps to ensure the health of Canadians, animals and our environment. I would add that the assessment of any genetically modified plant or crop is rigorous and comprehensive. It requires significant scientific data to be provided and evaluated.

Regulation through sound science is an essential step in the continued safe production of biotechnology derived foods. The 2000 federal budget confirms this priority in Canada's regulatory system. The $90 million investment in the regulatory system for biotechnology products will help Canada, the CFIA and other regulatory departments to continue to enhance and evolve their safety first regulatory approach to keep pace with the next generation of scientific discoveries.

This increased investment illustrates the continued dedication of the Government of Canada to supporting the regulatory system for the benefit of all Canadians.

We can take great pride in the steps the government has taken. We should remember that Canada was the first country in the world to actively engage a broad range of stakeholders in this issue. These initiatives have become the model for other countries.

Just last week, on June 5, the United Kingdom announced the establishment of its Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission which will look at developments in biotechnology. This commission has a mandate that was decidedly similar to that of the CBAC.

We have initiatives under way to ensure that Canada is well positioned for the future. The Canadian public is already strongly engaged on the issue of genetically modified foods. The government is adopting a balanced and consultative approach to the labelling of these foods and we are letting Canadians know that our top priority is health, safety and the environment. We have incorporated these values into our regulatory system.

For these reasons I urge my colleagues to vote against Motion No. 230.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to debate genetically modified foods. I was a General Motors dealer for years in the car business and every time I hear GM foods I wonder if General Motors would like it to be changed.

We are here to talk about genetically modified foods. It is a subject that makes most people nervous. It makes most consumers nervous. The people I talk to around my riding are very concerned not only about genetically modified foods, but also that we may lose our original foods. If there are enough genetically modified foods produced, then we may eventually lose the original type of food we had.

It reminds me somewhat of the debate in the Miramichi last week. There was a world conference on salmon fishing. The big problem was the possibility that the original Atlantic salmon would disappear because of the impact of aquaculturally raised salmon. If aquaculturally raised salmon mixed enough with wild Atlantic salmon, then eventually the wild Atlantic salmon would disappear. That is a comment I hear often from people in my riding. They are concerned about genetically modified foods and that this may happen with other foods.

The term “genetically modified foods” concerns consumers and farmers especially. They do not know where to turn. They do not know whether to use traditional agriculture or to branch out and take a leap forward into genetically modified foods. They are not sure which is safe for them. They are not sure which is safe for the land. They are not sure which is safe for consumers.

The whole country is looking to the government for leadership on this issue. It is an issue that must be addressed and the Department of the Health must provide the regulatory system to control this whole subject. Labelling is part of that, but it is not enough. It does not go far enough.

The government will be held accountable because the fear of the unknown is what bothers most people and most people do not have a clue what the impacts of genetically modified foods are. How would they? We do not have even a definition of genetically modified foods yet.

The onus is on the government to deal with this situation. I applaud the hon. member for bringing forth this motion requiring labelling, but it is not enough and it does not address some of the main issues. It just is not clear enough. The motion states that the government should carry out exhaustive studies on the long term effects of these foods on health and the environment. Although I applaud the move to labelling, what this bill states cannot be defined. Exhaustive studies on the long term effects cannot be defined, and it would be very difficult to do exhaustive studies on the long term effects without stopping the process now.

The fact of the matter is that genetically modified foods have helped the Canadian agricultural industry become competitive in the global economy and helped farmers to make better use of their land and provide more food for a world that needs food. However, it is absolutely mandatory that the government take every step possible to address the definition of genetically modified foods and to protect consumers.

There are many agencies that have already voluntarily agreed to supply labelling for genetically modified foods. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada held an off the record technical briefing for reporters in October and said that food companies are permitted to label genetically modified foods, but there are no plans to make it mandatory. In response to that some agricultural and retail organizations have offered to do it.

Sustainable agricultural practices are another big topic for our country right now, how we can maintain our land and ensure it is able to produce the foods we need. Some of these genetically modified foods help guarantee that our agricultural business will be sustainable. We do have some positives.

We also have new markets that we never had before. Some of our agricultural industries are able to supply products which were never available before in the world. Some of our research laboratories and companies in Canada are world leaders in this field. There are pros and cons to this whole subject, but again the onus is on the government to provide the regulatory situation to deal with this new concept to ensure that consumers have food security and that the industry is controlled.

The Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors and the Canadian General Standards Board have launched a project to help develop the standards for voluntary labelling. Maybe this would be the way to go, with the government as back-up. The ministers of health have announced their intention to establish an independent expert panel to examine future scientific developments in biotechnology. The first thing they have to do is define genetically modified foods. Without that definition, regulations cannot be written to control labelling or any other aspect of it.

I want to conclude by saying that it is extremely critical for our future. We may be making mistakes now that will affect us for a long time. We may be deteriorating our food base, or we may be enhancing it.

Again, it is up to the government. It has the power, it has the resources, and it has the responsibility to deal with this issue. That is where it should be. It should not be left up to a private member's bill to say that we need exhaustive, long term studies before we can do anything. The bill does not say whether we should stop the genetically modified process while we are doing the exhaustive studies or whether we should continue. It is up to the government, not a private member's bill, to deal with this very, very important issue.

We are watching this very closely. We will hold the government accountable for the process and for the ability to regulate and provide the regulations. Generally speaking, so far genetically enhanced foods have benefited the agricultural sector and biotechnology does offer an opportunity to improve our environment and improve our food quality. However, it is not appropriate for this very, very important subject to be dealt with through a private member's bill, which has no definition of even the subject of genetically modified foods or some kind of timeframe for this exhaustive study.

Again, the Progressive Conservative Party will be holding the government accountable to ensure that the regulatory process is in place and followed.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to rise in this important debate on the whole issue of the labelling of genetically modified foods.

I must first of all commend my colleague from Louis-Hébert, who undertook her initiative on this issue a year ago. Today, she has already gathered throughout Quebec 60,000 signatures on the petition supporting her initiative, that is legislation requiring the government to label GMOs.

I was listening earlier to my Liberal colleague talking about transparency. I heard him talk in his speech about concepts, theories, great philosophical considerations, but he did not talk about any concrete measure to support my colleague's initiative. I was astounded when he said he had great confidence in the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

My colleague approached the Commission d'accès à l'information to try to become acquainted with the process regulating the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, to learn how one determines what is a GMO and what is not.

This morning, I heard the Liberal member say that everything hangs on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I have my opinion with regard to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, because I have been called upon a few times to participate in some missions overseas. What are they doing with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency? They are making it into a propaganda instrument, what I often call a “Canada approved” seal.

When they are overseas, government representatives are great democrats, incredibly open-minded. Back in the House, the government no longer practices democracy but information control.

If the Liberal member has a paper on the process used to determine what is a GMO and what is not, I strongly call upon him to pass it on to us and most of all to tell the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to inform us on the process, because we do not know it yet. The steps we are now taking show that there are seven or eight ministers involved in the GMO issue and nobody has been able to explain the process fir determining what is a GMO and what is not.

I can go even farther. In this government, there is a new trend. They now talk in terms of risk management, on such a serious issue as genetically modified foods. They might take a risk— that is how the Liberals think—and then they will see. That is risk management, and on an issue as important as this one. At the present time, there are a few countries which are following this risk management approach, which is a kind of compromise to avoid having to confront and settle the question of GMOs.

I insist that the Liberals, the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance change their minds on this. The work of my colleague, the member for Louis-Hébert, as well as that of my party, the Bloc Quebecois, aimed at tabling this legislation so that there will be mandatory labelling of GMOs is but the beginning of a process aimed at clarifying matters.

All that we are calling for at the present time is to have labelling made mandatory and to have the government invest the essential resources, both financial and research resources, into lending some credibility to Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, so that they are not put in a position of being both judge and jury.

I trust that the Liberals will understand the importance of this debate. We are already aware that there have been problems with certain crops, because Canada is lagging behind many of the other countries as far as monitoring GMOs is concerned. I have already said, and say again, as do some of the farmers in my riding, when the day comes that people have any doubt whatsoever about whether our products contain any GMOs, in this era of global trade, the shipment of wheat or any other product that has been genetically modified will not get out of the country. This will mean significant losses for the economy.

The European Union, Japan, Brazil, even the United States, have started work on mandatory labelling, on specific means to ensure identification of what is a GMO and what is not. Meanwhile, once again here in parliament, in the statements by ministers, in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the discussion is still around concepts and theories, and not concrete measures, things that might make both the agricultural industry and the consumer feel more secure?

Some producers have invested a great deal of money in organic farming, and, because of the government, they stand to loose a great deal of that money. We are working hard to get a certification program for organic farmers.

In view of the great risk associated with genetically modified plants, it is absolutely essential that the government take action.

I would like to say a word about the behaviour of Liberal members since the beginning of this debate, especially since we succeeded in having the Standing Committee on Agriculture hold public hearings. We realize how unaware they are of the import of this debate and all the consequences of this crucial issue.

Let me remind the House of the countries that have taken concrete steps. In April 2000, the European Union submitted regulations on which plants are genetically modified. Mexico has followed suit. As soon as 2001, Japan will implement a mandatory labelling policy. Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and even India have also taken action. These countries are now conducting tests to sort out the mandatory labelling issue.

In Canada, with the Liberal government, we are talking about concepts and theories, and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency which is supposed to give us an incredible level of security in our health controls.

A moment ago, when I was listening to the remarks of my colleague opposite, I had the impression he was reading a speech that had been written from beginning to end by Health Canada. This is to say that these people are not serious and that they do not understand the scope of the GMO issue. When the economic and health consequences will be known, those who already oppose compulsory labelling will be held accountable at the next election.

The public is aware of this issue. People have been asking many questions. They want to know what is in their food. It is fundamental. Producers want to know what kind of seed they are planting. This is also fundamental.

Why does the government still refuse compulsory labelling of GMOs when Canada's main trading partners have adopted it? There will be an imbalance somewhere down the road.

But it is reducing the issue to one of risk management, of losing millions in exports, and of managing possible risks to the health and safety of producers.

I hope that in the coming days, the Liberals will discuss the matter, change their mind and rally to the position of the Bloc Quebecois, which is more realist and concrete, which provides for safety measures and, most importantly, promotes a cause that is very important for today's society.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 29 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; and of the amendment.

Species At Risk Act

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Madam Speaker, in the opening to her recent book The Nature of Economies , Jane Jacobs writes, “To be heard, a book needs a collaborator: a reader with a sufficiently open mind to take in what the book is saying and dispute or agree, but in any case think about it”. May I suggest that speeches in this place have the same requirement. They need a collaborator, they need an audience with sufficiently open minds to take in the message of the speech.

I am sad to say that oftentimes on a issue of such fundamental importance to Canadians as the environment, when those concerned with its preservation and restoration rise to speak, few are really willing to listen. Many in this place say they care and many make fine speeches themselves, but words are a poor substitute for action. All of the rhetoric in the world will not save a river, a fish, a forest, nor will it protect a child from a hazardous contaminant. Our words will not protect species at risk, only our actions can.

Any movement to restore, preserve or protect the natural environment is often faced by an onslaught of criticism from industrial interests. They are quick to say this will cost jobs. They are quick to accuse those seeking to protect the environment of being alarmists. They put forward a false dichotomy of environment versus economy.

In the case of endangered species, they cite the wicked spotted owl as the single cause of job losses and the closing of communities within the forest industry in the United States. This is not true but such mythologizing serves their needs. Such alarmism pays dividends to those who are fundamentally uninterested or even opposed to protecting the environment and to protecting species, many of which are threatened by the activities of the industries in question. What many fail to recognize is as E. O. Wilson states, “that the planet's biological wealth is the basis for our material and cultural wealth”.

A few weeks ago EcoSummit 2000 brought medical doctors, scientists, aboriginal leaders and policy experts to Ottawa to meet with parliamentarians and discuss the effects of water borne pollutants on human health. The special guest speaker at the Monday evening session was the noted American environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Professor Kennedy reminded us in a very eloquent and passionate speech that we cannot separate the environment from the economy. They are not in contradiction to each other nor are they factors to be balanced one against the other on some mythological teeter-totter of government policy making. They are entwined. To quote Professor Kennedy, “In 100% of the situations, good environmental policy is identical to good economic policy”. Identical. We must always remember, environmental injury is deficit spending. It is passing the cost of our generation's prosperity and loading it onto the backs of our children.

The human animal is part of nature, yet too many see humanity as a separate entity. As a result we try to tame nature. We try to civilize and domesticate nature. We make war against nature. Yet we continue to ignore the fundamental aspect of our humanity. We are in nature and nature is in us. We cannot control nature. We are merely part of a wider natural system. Humans can only intervene in processes of nature. If we respect the rest of nature, if we learn from nature, then it is possible to conduct human activities in harmony with nature. If we show no respect and continue to act through greed, brashness or ignorance we will face dire consequences. As Jane Jacobs said:

Nothing is more unforgiving of error than nature. If we poison our own water and air with hormone-mimicking chemicals...nature's solution for maladaptation is extinction.

When we respect nature we can begin to understand the incredible services it provides. For those who must, putting a monetary value on nature's services is difficult for many reasons. What price can be assigned to the last drop of water, the last gasp of fresh air? But it is not impossible.

In his book Natural Capitalism , Paul Hawken estimates that biological services that flow directly into society from the stock of natural capital are worth at least $36 trillion U.S. annually. Yet these fundamental services are rarely understood and grossly undervalued. Why must we protect nature? We must protect nature because it enriches us. As Professor Kennedy said:

It enriches us economically, yes, it's the base of our economy, the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment. But it also enriches us culturally, recreationally, aesthetically, spiritually and historically. It connects us to one another; it connects us to our history and our culture. Human beings have other appetites besides money, and if we don't feed them we are not going to grow up. We are not going to become the kinds of beings that we are supposed to become. We're not going to fulfil ourselves or our destinies. When we destroy nature we diminish ourselves, and we impoverish our children.

Biological diversity is vital to the healthy operation of natural systems, the same systems that remove toxins from our water and air, that provide safe containment of our aquifers and that restore nutrients to soil. Therefore we must protect species in order to preserve biological diversity.

Which of our present species of plants will prove to contain ingredients essential to future medicines, vaccines and cures? We cannot know this, hence we must protect them for our children and our grandchildren.

The UN convention on biological diversity recognizes that biological diversity must be conserved. In order to do this, sustainable use of components of biological diversity must be ensured. To further this we must have a fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.

Article 8(k) of the convention on biological diversity calls on all contracting parties to develop and maintain necessary legislation and/or the regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations. Canada should be congratulated as the first industrial country to ratify the UN convention on biological diversity. As a nation we made a commitment to protect endangered species through this convention. It is now long past the time to act on this commitment.

The House now has before it Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. Already serious concerns about this bill have been raised not only by environmentalists and conservationists and environmental lawyers, but by scientists and industry representatives. Incredibly many concerns are shared by these various groups.

If Bill C-33 passes the second reading vote, it will then proceed to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. As part of parliamentary procedure, witnesses will be called before the committee which will hear their presentations on this bill.

We will do nothing to protect species at risk unless this bill leaves committee as a good, effective piece of legislation. The House must support legislation that is strong, fair, effective and makes biological sense. Unfortunately Bill C-33 is wanting. Legislation must also be enforceable and it must be enforced.

The environment committee of this session of parliament has a fine tradition of being open minded and thoughtful as it listens to the many expert witnesses who come before it. The environment committee has a practice of serving the interests of Canadians by taking tough stands to protect our natural heritage. I expect that the environment committee will continue to act in the public interest to protect our nation's commons and will also honour parliamentary tradition in remembering its responsibilities to parliament.

I remind members of the House, as I have many times in the past, of this place's origin. The true test of any democracy is its ability to give voice to all its members. Wealth and position cannot be the criteria for participation in a democracy. The power of democracy is in its articulation of the public interest and its action to protect the common weal. Indeed, as our colleagues from earlier times during the beginning of the evolution of parliamentary democracy represented the common person, not just the rich and not just the nobility, we too must represent all Canadians.

As we look down, we see that the floor of the House is covered in a green carpet which reminds us of democracy's humble beginnings. Ordinary people would meet on the grassy green commons of their villages to discuss and debate the concerns of the day. We can trace a connection to nature all the way back to the very birthplace of our parliamentary tradition.

What is it that our ancestors so wisely understood that we of this House in so many ways have sadly forgotten? It is that we are of nature. We have been given a public trust to protect the commons, a commons that includes those who do not vote: children, the unborn and the natural world around us. This is a duty we cannot ignore. I call on all members of the House to ensure when this bill goes before committee that it is properly amended.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in 1992, Canada played a leading role in Rio, to promote the development of the Convention on Biological Diversity. As a matter of fact, Canada was the first industrialized nation to ratify this convention after the Principality of Monaco.

One of the underlying elements of the convention is precisely the enactment of legislation to protect species at risk. The convention requires that the member States pass such an act.

The Liberal government made many promises in that regard, including the one made in the red book and confirmed in the 1997 election and those made in the Speech from the Throne for 1996 and that for 1999.

I am pleased that we brought before the House Bill C-33, which we are debating today, to protect species at risk. This bill is succeeding to Bill C-65, which died on the order paper in 1997, when the election was called.

The purpose of the second reading of a bill is to try to establish the limits and the criteria that we, as members of Parliament, have set to improve the bill when it is sent to committee. I think that this bill will require some fundamental amendments.

We start with listing. Listings are made initially by a committee called COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. It has been working for something like two decades. It has identified 339 species at risk over that time. Instead of using the existing list of 339 species and incorporating it into the new act, we are going ahead as if the list does not exist. We are starting with an initial list of zero. Instead of being recognized as being the final list produced by scientists of the highest repute who have worked tirelessly over the last two decades, the list will now be subject to the discretion of cabinet. I find that terribly ironic.

Putting myself in the place of a cabinet member—and I used to belong to cabinet—I am supposed to rule on a list produced by scientists who have been studying the subject for years and who are well aware of what they speak. We are supposed to accept the discretion of cabinet ministers, most of whom are completely unfamiliar with the subject and who will have the discretion to list species at risk or decide not to, and the political considerations of course will rule. The minister of agriculture will say one thing, the industry minister will say another, the minister of natural resources and so forth and so on. The minister of the environment will have to fight for his territory to say it is worth listing a certain species.

We are not even starting with the roll of the list of the 339 species identified by COSEWIC. That is a glaring fault in the law. Without a listing there cannot be protection.

The protection of habitat and the listing are synonymous. They are twins. One cannot go without the other. If we wait for cabinet decisions, which take endless time to come forward, we will not have any listing for a long time.

Now we come to habitat. All scientists, all people in general, all Canadians realize that habitat and species go together. If we do not have habitat we will not have species. If we destroy or damage habitat, we destroy or damage species. It is very obvious. Yet in regard to habitat, which is a critical element of any law for the protection of endangered species, we have made habitat again discretionary. It will be cabinet that will decide whether habitat protection may or may not be included in the act. It is even a retreat from the previous bill, Bill C-65, which never left the discretion in the hands of cabinet. In Bill C-65 the provision was to the effect that cabinet shall list and protect habitat when there is good cause to do so. Now it may. It is another glaring omission.

In this context it is worth citing certain provincial laws. Very often we criticize the provinces for not having definite laws, but I would like to quote a few of them.

The New Brunswick Endangered Species Act of 1996 states: “No person shall wilfully or knowingly destroy, disturb or interfere with the critical habitat of a member of an endangered species”.

The P.E.I. Wildlife Conservation Act states: “No person shall destroy, disturb or interfere with, or attempt to destroy, disturb or interfere with the habitat of an endangered or threatened species”.

The Ontario Endangered Species Act states: “No person shall wilfully destroy or interfere with or attempt to destroy or interfere with the habitat of any species or flora or fauna declared in the regulations to be threatened with extinction”.

The Manitoba law states: “No person shall destroy, disturb or interfere with the habitat of an endangered or threatened species”.

Our neighbours to the south have had an endangered species law for many years, since 1973. It states: “With respect to endangered species of fish and wildlife listed pursuant to this act, it is unlawful for any person to—take such species within the United States”. It also explicitly prohibits habitat destruction in areas of federal jurisdiction.

The big difference is that in the case of all these laws that I cited, the onus of proof is clearly a very important and onerous burden on the person who destroys habitat. He or she is judged to be guilty unless he or she proves otherwise. Whereas in our new law, we would have to wait for cabinet to decide whether it may or may not protect habitat and incorporate it within the act. We fail completely compared to the laws that I have cited.

We then must view the question of federal jurisdiction and the safety net. In our own areas of jurisdiction we are again so timid as to apply discretion all over the place. There is an opinion from Justice La Forest, whose reputation and stature do not need to be underlined. He has said that Canada, the federal government, has complete jurisdiction over birds that migrate and also over cross-border species. We do not need to be timid, but even then we have applied discretion.

We have applied all kinds of discretion, so that in effect we would have to consult with everybody, consult with cabinet ministers, one to the other, and consult with the provinces before we even make a decision regarding the habitat of species that is clearly within our jurisdiction.

When I was in Quebec, I had the honour of tabling the Quebec legislation on threatened species. I know what it is all about. At the department, we had worked with one of the experts, Lionel Gaudreau, to whom I would like to pay tribute today. He had explained to me why the habitat and the list of threatened species had to be considered for automatic protection. Unfortunately, this protection has been restricted and tainted lately. I hope that the act will be maintained.

Once again, what we need here is to pass clear, convincing and, above all, decisive legislation, as the United States and some provinces did.

This is why I urge my colleagues that, once this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, we improve on all its major principles. Otherwise, the bill will be too weak.

It is essential that we improve the bill and strengthen it when it is referred to the committee. This is the wish that I want to express out loud to all the members in the House.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the previous two speakers, both of whom I have the utmost respect for. I very much appreciated their comments.

My question concerns species at risk that move across international boundaries. Would the member inform the House if he is aware of sources in the United States which have indicated in a very harsh and critical way their views of this legislation in terms of not being able to protect species that move across international boundaries, either Canada and Alaska or Canada and the southern states?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no doubt knows, not only all of the leading environmental groups in the United States, but a lot of organizations representing people at large have pointed out that Canada is lacking very badly in this regard. Cross-border species must be protected according to the convention, according to NAFTA and according to all binding agreements between our two countries. For us to do this in such a timid fashion as to leave it to discretion is unacceptable to both the United States and Mexico, both of which have very strong endangered species legislation.

We cannot consider that birds and other wildlife which cross borders from the north to the south every winter are not under federal jurisdiction. It makes no sense at all. Of course we have to protect wildlife under our jurisdiction.

Robert Kennedy Jr. pointed this out in eloquent terms to the House. It was sad to hear an American giving us a lesson in Canada. He said that our endangered species legislation is weak and must be improved, bona fide and strengthened.

I agree with the hon. member that one critical area is cross-border species.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his very fine speech. I am sure that all of us are aware of the leadership that he shows on environmental issues and with his presence on the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

I want to ask for a clarification or an expansion on some of the points he has raised with regard to the involvement of the parliamentary standing committee in the process of hearing witnesses and the amendment process. A lot of us in the House hear about how impotent some backbenchers are. One of the key roles that members of the House have to play is on a parliamentary standing committee. All of the members on both sides of the House are aware that a parliamentary standing committee reports to parliament and to you, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. member make a few comments on that?

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the committee is an ideal place to strengthen legislation. It is completely independent of thought, or it should. It represents all parties in the House in a far more congenial atmosphere than exists in this place, where the atmosphere is much more adversarial. Committee members have a duty to try and see the flaws of legislation. There are very few in this case. There might be five items that need to be strengthened. If we were to do this, we would do parliament, cabinet and the minister a big favour.

I hope members on all sides of the House will join together to identify the few areas, some of which I have been spoken to, that need to be strengthened. I do not think there are many of them and I think we can do it by working together in a constructive spirit of co-operation. We should rejoice that there is a law, but there are certain critical flaws. Let us get together and work within the committee to make sure the flaws disappear.

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

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.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac—Mégantic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a known fact that the government of this Prime Minister is looking every day for confrontation with Quebec.

As a matter of fact, last Saturday in Drummondville near my riding, the majority of the Liberal Party of Canada riding association presidents asked the Prime Minister to put an end to this confrontation.

The case in point this morning is Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk.

It so happens that the Canadian Constitution that was patriated by this Prime Minister in 1982 clearly says that sedentary animals, the hare, for example, which lives on a very small territory of no more than one square kilometre, are under provincial jurisdiction, while animals that roam across the North American continent are under federal jurisdiction, and Quebec accepts that. Why does the Minister for the Environment want, once again, to grab powers that belong to the provinces?

I see Bill C-33 as a new source of confrontation. When will the Prime Minister and the Cabinet respect once and for all the provinces and Quebec?

I would like to ask my colleague, the member for Jonquière, who is our critic for the environment, if she could tell us how she intends to try to bring back the Minister for the Environment to his senses, now and in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Frontenac—Mégantic, my assistant on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, is very concerned about the environment. It should be realized that Bill C-33 will create a major confrontation, not only with Quebec, but also with the other provincial governments that have their own legislation.

We must urgently tell this government—and I hope that all members of the House, will do so; at least the members of the Bloc Quebecois will—to go back to the drawing board. It is time the federal government stopped passing laws that interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is not perfect as the government member and former Quebec Minister of the Environment said. The provincial laws are not perfect, but at least the provinces have the merit of having laws to protect threatened species.

But this government is saying “Move over. We are taking over. What you have already done no longer exists”. Moreover, it is not just the Minister of the Environment who will have such an attitude. All the other ministers will define their priorities, including the Minister of Industry, the Minister of Natural Resources and so on. Enough is enough.

We are again witnessing the government' haugtines. It thinks it knows everything and is above everyone else. Personally, I think the provinces have already taken a big step. It is the federal government that should follow the provinces' lead. This is how, from the Bloc Quebecois' perspective, this government should act with regard to its policy and its legislation.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, before the House adjourns for the summer, the legislative process is put in high gear for many bills. I was wondering why the government wanted Bill C-33 passed before the summer recess. I was driving to the riding of Berthier—Montcalm in my car when I suddenly heard the answer on the radio.

It is a comment I am making, and I would like the member, who has studied the issue and who follows the minister closely on this issue, to tell me whether I am mistaken or whether I got it right. On the radio, there was a short segment about Canada's wetlands and all the animals that live there. It was a message paid for by the federal government, so it was nothing more than propaganda on what the government does in that area. I thought, would it not be nice if the federal government could add to that that it passed a bill on species at risk?

Would it not be nice to go into the election campaign with such a bill, and to be able to say so on this short segment or on any other segment paid for by the federal government?

It is a way for the government to tell people that it is so good, that it is so smart and that it protects species at risk. Even though this is not its jurisdiction, even though this could alienate the provinces and even though Quebec does extraordinary things in that area, it does not matter. The federal government, our big brother, has money and it uses our tax money, taxes paid by Quebecers and Canadians, to pay for its propaganda. I think I got that answer on the radio.

I would like to know from the member, who is very familiar with this issue, which she follows closely, and who does excellent work in the area of the environment, whether or not I am right with regard to the federal government's motivation in wanting to pass Bill C-33 at all costs before the summer recess.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Berthier—Montcalm and tell him that he is definitely a visionary. He was bang on target with this. This is exactly what the government wants.

This is the third time that the government is trying to bring forward a bill respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk. It did it first in 1995, then in 1997, and now, in 2000, it is back at it again, although it knows quite well—and the hon. member for Berthier—Montcalm is right—that habitats are under provincial jurisdiction.

Thus, this segment the member heard is blatant intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. The bill ignores that. The Liberals even want to interfere with the habitats of wildlife species at risk, which are recognised as a provincial jurisdiction. There are federal lands, yes, and they are right to deal with those lands. However, they have no business on provincial lands.

I think that my colleague for Berthier—Montcalm is a visionary and that the government is up to something. I regret to have to say it, but I do not know what the government is up to. It is looking for a place to be, an issue to take a stand on, or an attitude to show off. I do not know what it is up to.

I believe all Quebecers and all Canadians think that, after two mandates and three years into their second mandate, the Liberals do not know what to do anymore. They are contemplating an election. We do not know why, because there is no reason for it. They are looking for all kinds of bills that will give them an in with the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, I do not think this is the way to go. This government must learn that the important thing is to ensure that the provinces' areas of jurisdiction are respected and that endangered species are clearly covered by legislation while respecting provincial jurisdiction.

We wish the bill were drafted in such a way. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is supporting the Progressive Conservatives' amendment calling for a six month hoist so that the government may take the time to sit down and think it over, to say to itself “That is right, the thing makes no sense. This is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it must be done co-operatively”. That is not a concept that the Liberals appear to be familiar with. I think that I will write the word co-operatively out for them and explain how it is written and what it means.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to make clear at the beginning that I will share this speaking spot with my hon. colleague from Churchill River.

I must say that there are some mixed feelings as I stand to make a few comments regarding Bill C-33 today. It is a piece of legislation dealing with endangered species that we have been requesting for many years. As a matter of fact I can remember, going back almost 20 years, groups making representations to committees and to us as individual members of parliament saying that we need to have such legislation.

The United States has had endangered species legislation going back to 1973. People were making the case that we needed to have it in Canada, particularly in areas where there is the migration of animals or migratory birds going between Canada and the United States. After years and years of lobbying we finally now have a piece of legislation, Bill C-33, before us which is known as the Species at Risk Act or SARA. It is a long overdue promise now before us, but I must say, and I say it with some reluctance, this is actually not a very good piece of legislation at all.

I suppose it is better than nothing but not much better. As a matter of fact it may not even be better than nothing because it gives the impression that the government has actually done something to take some serious steps toward ensuring that species at risk will be protected in Canada.

The throne speech said that the government would introduce legislation to ensure that species at risk and their critical natural habitat were protected. The reality is this legislation does not do that. It does not ensure that species will be identified and protected. It certainly does not ensure that habitat will be protected.

The two fundamental elements of any kind of endangered species legislation, that is the identification and protection of the species and the identification and protection of their habitat, are not included. They are absent.

It is puzzling that it is left to the Minister of the Environment or to politicians to decide what species are at risk. With all due respect to my parliamentary colleagues, I am not sure we are experts in this field. Well known scientists have documented the fact that there are 351 species at risk presently in Canada. These scientists are eminently qualified to make that determination. Now we will turn it over essentially to cabinet. They are a nice group of people but they are not really equipped to determine what kind of species ought to be identified at risk, let alone whether or not the habitat should be protected.

To be fair, we might have a good Minister of the Environment or there might one in the future who would lead this discussion in cabinet, but what if we had a crummy minister of the environment? What if a red neck anti-wildlife type of person who was made Minister of the Environment and as a result—

[Sarkis Assadourian, Liberal, Brampton Centre, ON]

It will never happen.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

It has happened. We could look at Ontario, for example. Ontario has had as many ministers of the environment as we change socks on an annual basis. Quite frankly they are, by their own admission, not qualified to be ministers of the environment. They do not know much about it. Let us imagine if that were the case here. This legislation would be a complete mockery. Therein lies a crucial weakness in the legislation, the fact that we have to take away the aspect where politicians will be the final arbitrators of this issue.

There is a role to play for politicians. There is a role to play for elected representatives. However when the legislation is passed, if in fact it gets passed in the next little while, there will not be a single identified species at risk. In other words, we will have to start all over again to develop this list. What a crazy process.

What is embarrassing about it is that our two NAFTA partners, Mexico and the United States, have had legislation in place, the United States since 1973 and Mexico since 1992. Both acts are a whole lot stronger than this one. They are concerned about the fact that the government says that this has nothing to do with species that migrate across interprovincial or international borders.

If a moose is wandering around in the forest it does not realize it is crossing a border. A border will not stop it from going into Alaska or elsewhere in the United States. It will not stop it from going between Saskatchewan and Alberta or wherever. Of course moose do not behave in that way. When ducks or geese fly around they do not stick to one provincial area. They are crossing provincial boundaries and crossing international boundaries. The legislation does not acknowledge that fact. It does not provide that kind of protection.

The minister says that is not their jurisdiction. If it is not federal jurisdiction whose jurisdiction is it? There are very puzzling elements in the legislation.

Back in 1992 hon. members will remember that Canada was the very first western nation to sign the biological diversity convention. That convention requires Canada to pass legislation protecting endangered species and their habitat. That was back in 1992 and nothing has happened.

Here we are now in the year 2000 and legislation has been introduced, but I have yet to find a single person who likes the legislation. I have yet to see a single group of people who like the legislation. A vast array of environmental groups have lobbied us. They have visited our offices here and our constituency offices. Many of them are personal friends. They say the legislation just is not on, that it has to be changed.

For example, even groups like the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Canadian Mining Association say the legislation needs to be strengthened. When we have the mining association and the pulp and paper or the forestry industry saying such things, we have to ask who supports the legislation. Before the government brings in legislation we would think somebody somewhere would support it. Even one group or one person. However so far nobody supports it except the minister.

We have to change the legislation when it gets to committee. As some previous speakers have indicated, it is an all party committee. I think we are all determined to improve the legislation. I have identified a couple of problem areas. My colleagues from Churchill River will undoubtedly reveal some other concerns.

We should consider that the disappearance of habitat is responsible for 80% of the species that disappear. We are all aware from popular literature that as a result of the paving over of the countryside, the vast amount of cutting in the forests and the occupation of many wilderness areas as a result of tourism and travellers that the habitat of many of our species is disappearing. This is something we have to come to grips with, as well as the issue of compensation.

In closing, when we protect a particular habitat there has to be both a carrot and a club. The carrot would be to encourage people to work to preserve habitat. If they fail to do so there has to be some kind of club that will penalize them.

When we take productive lands out of use in order to protect a habitat some compensation has to be there. I am thinking particularly of the comments of the cattlemen's association to this point and the people indirectly involved who would lose their means of employment as a result of a protective initiative being taken. They too have to be compensated in some form. These are some of the clarifications we will pursue in committee.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-33, the much anticipated Species at Risk Act. In our opinion this is an appropriate title for a very weak act because it truly highlights that our species will be at risk with the current form of legislation before us.

My hon. colleagues from the committee and my hon. colleagues in the House on both sides have said that the bill by no means addresses everyone's expectations and that there is a lot of work to be done.

For the record I would like to state that our guiding principle was a resolution brought to us at our biennial convention. It by no means waters down any commitment for comprehensive federal endangered species legislation. It must be in co-operation with all other governments including provincial ones. Traditional aboriginal knowledge and aboriginal communities could help. The guiding principles has been the identification and listing of species at risk by an independent committee of scientists. This list would be based on scientific evidence as the primary consideration and not on political interpretation of data.

Our worst fears by far have come to light with the Species at Risk Act. Bill C-33 is certainly not based on the listing and identification of species at risk. It will not be done wholly or confirmed by an independent committee of scientists. There will be a role for the politicians and the executive council of the federal government to play in identifying and sanctioning the lists of species at risk. That is of great detriment to this bill.

Another guiding principle that we highlighted was a comprehensive and nation-wide natural habitat protection initiative. This includes protection of species that range or migrate over Canada's domestic and international borders. As my hon. colleague mentioned, there is no protection in this act to deal with international boundary migration or interprovincial boundary migration. There is even question in terms of federal boundaries or federal jurisdiction that will be further watered down and susceptible to interpretation.

This major piece of legislation will be worked on in the legal system. It will be translated and interpreted by legal minds in light of legal challenges. We challenge the committee in its deliberations to look at the draft and ensure the issue of jurisdiction is covered. We must not be tying our hands on federal jurisdiction or federal crown lands. We have species at risk from coast to coast to coast.

It would not impede us in any way to work with the positive initiatives, as the other members have mentioned, of other provinces to identify species at risk or endangered species in their jurisdictions. We must work with those provinces. We must work with the communities and the industries that would like to see a major departure from a lack of legislation to a strong piece of legislation that will protect species at risk.

Another major guiding principle for us that was challenged on behalf of our membership was the inclusion of stakeholders in the development of species recovery plans, the provision of adequate support for those whose livelihood is disrupted by a species recovery plan and the provision for a just transition of workers and communities which may be affected by recovery plans.

With regard to the whole issue of stakeholders and compensating for any loss of land, livelihood or industry that may occur, the government should take a respectful view. In light of the major changes in protecting our biodiversity in the country and in the world, we may have to take major steps and make harsh decisions. We must ensure that we are compassionate to the people impacted through loss of livelihood, lands, community and industry that may occur.

These three guiding principles have helped us in our view. When we analyze Bill C-33 we find that the Liberal government lacks leadership on all three of these components in the Species at Risk Act before us.

Any species at risk must be based on respectful consideration of lands and landowners. This is certainly not reflected in the act. It dwells on it, but there is certainly nothing substantive that could make people sleep easier once the act is in place and protects species. If it happens that any of those species were found on their property they should have respectful consideration. That respectful consideration is not entrenched in this act. It must be spelled out clearly. It must point out the protocols to be followed in relations between governments and landowners.

Another issue the Liberal government has missed in the provision of leadership is science based decision making. Canadians know all too well the government's record in profit and politics. As we read the headlines time and time again, politics sometimes serves the best interest of the ministers' or the Prime Minister's decision making, and sometimes to the detriment of the environment.

The environment is sometimes not viewed as an election winner at voting time. Certainly people do not stand up to democratically represent species or animals. They certainly do not stand up to say they represent the land or the species that live on the land. Most voters usually stand up to be counted for their interests and those of their family and children.

The message for all Canadians is that we must make a direct connection to the land, the water and the many species which our lives depend on. Let us speak in their best interests and not only for our personal or family's interests. Democratically we represent Canada literally from coast to coast to coast. All living things within it should be represented in the House of Commons and it should be reflected in an act that is designed to protect the species of the country.

The act must also include specific references, which is a very crucial rule not only in scientific knowledge but also in aboriginal traditional ecological knowledge. It has now been recognized that this knowledge has weight and interpretation and the translation of it should not be missed in terms of the specific or immediate scientific knowledge.

Aboriginal traditional knowledge plays a major role in setting the assessment of the ecological cycles. These are not necessarily monthly nor according to food, financial, budgetary or calendar cycles. Some ecological cycles last for 5, 7, 10, 15 and 20 years. That knowledge may not be readily available in the scientific manuals or journals of the day, but it is entrenched in the knowledge of many traditional land users, in our communities and in our stories.

Industries have been created such as trapping, fishing and hunting. A lot of people are aware that these are industries and also are a very big part of the livelihoods of our communities. Not only is hunting, outfitting and fishing a viable tourism option, but it is also a very sustainable living. Acquiring some foods in that way displaces the high cost of hamburger and potatoes. A lot of traditional people depend on this.

Adequate funding mechanisms for biodiversity sciences and cataloguing of information from across this great country is also required. Research and development is needed for understanding the lands and waters. The Hudson plain which surrounds Hudson Bay, one of Canada's largest watersheds, is an example. There are huge freshwater bodies in the Hudson plain but there is no scientific picture in that area. There is no collection of data from the traditional communities incorporated into a data bank.

The impact of climate change just on the water studies of that region is an immediate necessity. There are also the transboundary pollutants, just like persistent organic pollutants that have been studied in the far north. The mid-Canada north should certainly be respected in that area. That is why the Hudson plain should be seriously looked at. It is a huge spawning ground for many of our fish. Migratory birds are in those regions at this time rejuvenating their species.

Members of the committee will certainly have to roll up their sleeves in order to make a sound species at risk act for the country. There are high expectations not only in this country but there are challenges internationally. Canada has made international commitments as is evidenced by the convention on biodiversity.

We have to protect our species at risk. Let us do it in a meaningful way, but let us create a piece of legislation that has the power to make these promises as strong as possible for the betterment of our future.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-33, the species at risk legislation which has been brought in by the present government.

Like the other members who have commented on the legislation, I regret to say I am a bit critical of it. I am critical of it because of some obvious flaws in the legislation and because of the government's apparent lack of will and the half-hearted attitude it has brought to this legislation, and its total inability to bring all the stakeholders on side. Not only are business and industry disrespectful and not supportive of the legislation, but the environmental groups and lobbyists are also disrespectful and not supportive of this legislation.

I would like to start my speech with some comments taken from the speech of our party's environment critic, the member for Fundy—Royal. I would like to quote a paragraph from his opening remarks.

Canada has 351 species that are recognized as endangered or at risk. There is no federal law to protect these species. The government's proposed species at risk act, known as SARA, is long overdue. It is a long overdue promise, but it is very disappointing. This legislation is even weaker and less effective than Bill C-65, the 1996 federal endangered species bill, which died before the 1997 election. This new bill is unacceptably ineffective in several key areas, particularly habitat protection. The main threat facing endangered species is the destruction of their habitat, the places where species breed, where they feed and where they raise their young.

I read over the excellent speech of the member for Fundy—Royal. I was quite intrigued with that comment, but I would add one more point to the point he was making. Bill C-65 was brought forward in 1996 and died before the 1997 election. I predict the same type of demise for this legislation. It is not supported by any of the parties in the House and is not supported by the Canadian public in general. I suspect the bill could die before the election in the fall of 2000, which the government has gone to great task lately to say will not happen, which is a pretty sure sign that it will happen.

It should also be pointed out that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was awarded an A grade on our paper, “Carrots Before Sticks”, for our outline of an effective endangered species legislation. The Liberal document which is before the House was awarded a D .

Obviously the government has missed out on this bill completely. It fails to understand what Canadian industry and environmentalists are looking for. It fails to understand much of what was alluded to by the New Democratic member who spoke previously, that whole principle of stewardship of the land.

Most people, farmers, forestry operators, landowners, city dwellers, first nations, Canadians anywhere, have some understanding of stewardship of the land. I grew up in rural Nova Scotia and I have a keen understanding of it coming from a hunting, fishing and farming background.

If we are going to leave something in this country and on this planet for our sons and daughters and their sons and daughters, we have to have a different approach to the way we look at species at risk and our interaction with the environment.

The Progressive Conservative Party endorses recommendations put forward by the species at risk working group, a multi-stakeholder association that involved both industry and environmental groups. The group examined ideas for an ideal bill, not this bill. It included representation from the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada, the Canadian Nature Federation and the Canadian Wildlife Federation.

Those groups do not ordinarily get together in one room and agree on anything. Obviously they are looking at this legislation and saying that there is a need and how can they formulate an approach they can agree with, that they can combine forces and overcome some of the obstacles and put forward a piece of legislation that will be helpful to wildlife, the environment and Canadians in general.

If mining, pulp and paper and environmentalists can devise a workable solution, then the Progressive Conservative Party will certainly endorse their plan. We recognize that extinction is forever. As a result, we believe that all Canadians want strong and effective endangered species legislation.

The status of a given species is a matter of scientific fact, not of political choice. It is for this reason the Progressive Conservative Party believes there has to be effective legislation that must take action based on sound science. We are also committed to protecting the rights of landowners and users. We believe that no single individual or entity should bear the burden of recovery of any species when the benefits of the species protection are for all society to appreciate.

That is a pretty simple theory. That is not a complicated concept for the government or Canadians to grasp and they should embrace that concept.

It was mentioned earlier that the legislation in the United States has been very powerful in protecting species to a degree, but it has also been a deterrent to protecting species. Anyone who has followed the debate in the U.S. should know that among many of the landowners there are two points which they like to discuss. It is the two s points: first they shoot it and then they bury it, or shovel it. That is not the approach we want to take in Canada.

We do not want to bring in legislation which is so difficult to abide by that when individuals, farmers, forestry operators, mine operators, aboriginal groups, recreational groups and developers come across an endangered species, we force them to get rid of it. That does not work. We have to encourage them. That means the government is going to have to open up its purse strings. It is going to have to find some ways to encourage that, and it will probably be a financial incentive, to protect the species at risk and to build a comprehensive plan around it that will allow for continued protection in the years to come. That is why the Conservative Party believes that when designing a recovery plan, the bulk of the decision making should be left to the stakeholders and not the Liberal cabinet.

There are a few simple points which I would like to repeat. If an endangered species is found in a given area, then the landowner must be doing something right and he should be given all the tools to continue. He should not be penalized. He should not be told that there is a part of his quarter section or his 250 acre woodlot that he will not be able touch from now on. We have to find a way to compensate people to protect that endangered species which happens to be there.

We need to know a few things about the species. Is it a species that is simply passing through? Is it a breeding ground? Is it habitat that they depend upon? Is that endangered species plant or animal? Is it migratory? There are a number of issues and points that we need to better understand.

We agree with and support the recognition for voluntary measures. We fully endorse stewardship as a means of providing protection for species and their critical habitat. We endorse a graduated approach to stewardship with a full tool kit from material designed to engage the stakeholders positively in this process. This could include tax incentives, habitat grants, scientific support and in some instances it may need to include compensation.

The PC Party believes that simply making criminals out of landowners will not save endangered species anymore than making criminals out of law-abiding gun owners will make society any safer.

There are several core components of our species at risk debate: to protect critical habitat; to use carrots before sticks; to form partnerships with the provinces; to have a full and comprehensive scientific listing of species; and, the protection for endangered species and their habitat. We need recovery plans and accountability mechanisms for citizens to ensure government forces act on their behalf.

I will go back to point number six that I raised regarding the recovery plan. We support legislation that commits to a firm target and time lines for designing and implementing an appropriate recovery plan for endangered species, whether they are endangered, threatened or vulnerable. I would like to use for comparison the wild Atlantic salmon.

The wild Atlantic salmon population is in critical decline and the federal government needs to address this problem immediately. People are already saying that it is a crisis situation and the numbers back them up. The wild salmon stock has dropped from 1.6 million 25 years ago to only 350,000 this year. I would state that the 350,000 is probably a generous estimate.

The Gold River in Nova Scotia, which I live beside, is a small salmon river. We used to have a run of salmon come up in the spring every year. It was not a run like the Margaree, the Miramichi or any of the big salmon rivers in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick but it was a great little run of fish. We would get anywhere from 350 to 600 fish in that river. We would see them in the pools 25 or 30 at a time. We do not see that today. It is no good taking my kids down to the salmon pool to show them a salmon jumping up over the falls or coming up the run because it would probably take five trips before we would see one. It is a matter of bringing these fish back.

The Atlantic Salmon Federation is looking for $50 million in funding spread out over a five year period. This would allow the federation to tag, track and monitor stocks and provide valuable insight into the problems facing this species. Many different factors could be contributing to the declining numbers, including pollution and dams, but more research is needed if the wild Atlantic salmon is going to be restored to its former abundance.

The government has had an opportunity to act on this species. I am not talking about all the other species at risk. I am talking about this particular one, the wild Atlantic salmon. The government has failed to provide the much needed funding for raising salmon smolts and the salmon parr for release into our rivers.

We proved through our wildlife and salmon associations a decade ago that river specific salmon did much better than just any salmon dropped into our tributaries and our water courses. The government has known about this but has completely stopped advancing moneys for the hatchery program in Nova Scotia, and in fact has closed it down. It tried to divest it to individuals but most of those hatcheries have since failed. It put a little money into a few of them this year just to get the fish out of the hatcheries but there was no comprehensive plan. Meanwhile the salmon numbers continue to dwindle and diminish.

The government talks about endangered species but, quite frankly, talk is cheap. We have seen that for too many years from this government.

The core components of our species at risk legislation has been explained and debated and put forth at committee by our member for Fundy—Royal. It is critical that we look at protecting habitat. We have to find a non-intrusive way to do that. It is critical that we use carrots before sticks. We have to encourage, recognize and reward stewardship by offering more carrots and resorting to fewer sticks.

Adequate funding, which I talked about a moment ago, is needed to implement activities designed to support the stakeholders in their efforts to recover and protect endangered species.

The PC Party believes a new bill should apply to all lands except where equivalent provincial legislation is in place. If we listened to the debate from the members of the Bloc Quebecois, that is exactly what they were talking about. They were talking about jurisdiction overlap and whose responsibility it was for certain species. Obviously this government has not figured that out.

We do not need another Kyoto where the provinces are forced to pay for a plan imposed upon them by the federal government. The provinces themselves should be provided with sufficient resources to address the issue and to ensure protective and effective enforcement.

The PC Party supports scientific listing of a species at risk and of the identification of the critical habitat required for its recovery. The PC Party believes a committee of wildlife experts should be charged with this task. It should be a matter of science, not a matter of politics.

We go on to the protection for endangered species and their habitat. The PC Party supports the immediate prohibition against the harming of any endangered species or its residence, and the protection of the critical habitat of species through either co-operative agreements or legal measures following a multi-stakeholder recovery plan.

What we do not believe is simply implementing some program where there has been no reaching out to the stakeholders group, that there has been no co-operative effort on and that is little understood and little supported by the people who will be most affected by it.

We need some accountability built into the process. We need a mechanism for citizens to ensure that the government enforces its own act. If the act is to include an accountability mechanism then the PC Party believes that there should be an independent process for the public to ensure the act is being effectively implemented. This process should allow citizens to challenge the federal government and not other citizens.

We do not need to make this act complicated. We do not need to make this act somehow a confrontation between our forestry operators, our farmers and our fishermen. What we need is to bring in an act that encourages the protection of species at risk. What we have is an act that fails to recognize that all important tenet.