Madam Speaker, it is both interesting and important for me to be able to speak this afternoon on second reading of Bill C-33, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada.
I wish to begin by saying that I oppose this bill in its present form and that, moreover, I support the amendment by the Conservative member for Fundy—Royal for a six month hoist, if not a permanent one.
Obviously, this will be very repetitious because we often keep coming back to the same points when we are addressing the same bill. One learns early on in politics, however, that the best way to get a point of view across properly is to say the same thing often, even the simplest of things.
I would like to start with an overview of the situation. At the present time, there are 70,000 known species in Canada and a good number of them apparently are found solely in Canada. So, we have 70,000 species and of that number 340 that are endangered. Obviously there are degrees to this. Some are already gone, some are vanishing, some are more endangered than others. Some can be saved with human intervention.
I imagine that the purpose of Bill C-33 was to allow human intervention, although this bill does not include the necessary resources to satisfy that need.
Would there be some additional protection that might be applicable? Is this bill really going to contribute to improving the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered species that constitute them? Let us have a look at the salient points of the bill.
The preamble is interesting, because it appropriately refers to the importance of protecting Canada's natural heritage and also reminds us of Canada's international commitments, for instance, under the convention on biodiversity, at the Rio summit, in 1992. The government had already examined the issue and was prepared to take some action.
This preamble also says that responsibility for the conservation of wildlife is shared among the various levels of government and that co-operation between them is essential.
In clauses 1 to 6, the purposes of the bill are further specified, as well as the definitions—definitions are always quite important in a bill—that determine what land is involved.
The previous bill, Bill C-65, dealt only with federal land.
In other words, the land was limited to what was part of the federal land, while the present bill goes further and deals with Canada's land in general, whether federal or provincial.
I would also like to remind the House of some other clauses in the bill. For example, in clauses 8 to 13, it says the heritage minister, the fisheries and oceans minister and any competent minister must be consulted before the establishment of committees or the signing of agreements with other levels of government. There is already a lot of people around the table, but the bill does affect several sectors of government operations.
At clauses 14 to 31, the bill provides for the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, which will have an official status and, from all appearances, will operate independently.
In other clauses, for example clauses 37 to 73, the bill talks of action plans, of recovery of endangered and threatened species and management plans for species of special concern. These interventions will be carried out in co-operation with the provinces, territories and the management boards, supervised, I imagine by COSEWIC.
I am passing quickly over all the enforcement aspects of the bill, over the infractions and penalties to reach clauses 126, 127 and 128, which provide that the minister will prepare a report, which he will table in the House, on the administration of the act over the previous year. Every five years, an assessment will be tabled as well to enable us to see whether the action plans formulated have had effect or done nothing.
When we look at this, we can see that the bill provides food for thought. Some aspects of it are interesting. Some aspects should be examined, but some of them should go further. However, what we find embarrassing is that this legislation will immediately take precedence over existing provincial legislation, even when the habitats are completely under provincial jurisdiction.
We must remember that endangered species are found solely on provincial territory. The government has ignored this and caps everything off with federal legislation that will take precedence over everything.
Other things made me smile. Clause 2 provides that the minister “may”—not must—“enter into an agreement”. Clause 39 provides that the competent minister must, “to the extent possible”, develop programs. A little further, in clauses 47 and 48, we find again the expression “to the extent possible”.
I do not know which jurist put the words “to the extent possible” in the bill, but that expression leads me to believe that there will be black holes, or grey areas, in that legislation.
The bill does not respect the division of powers, as established under the constitution and interpreted over the years. It squarely interferes with the jurisdictions of the provinces and it excludes the latter from any real and direct input in the process. Existing laws are thus ignored.
We support the protection of endangered species, of species at risk. We support it so much that we have already done something about it in Quebec. What bothers us is the fact that this government is proposing a bill that does not go as far as what we already have. To go backwards has never done any good to anyone.
Indeed, even though the minister supports in theory the notion of shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces concerning the protection of species, he ignores the division of powers and the provinces' responsibilities regarding habitat management and the protection of species. He ignores existing laws and gives himself very broad powers with regard to the protection of species.
In so doing, the federal government goes against true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government. This bill is too weak and it interferes with our jurisdictions. It must be reviewed. I do not know when, but the later the better, because an incredible amount of work needs to be done.
Many associations, such as the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the mining associations, which cover large areas, huge forests, as well as wetlands, know the pressure that such a bill can bring if guidelines are not clearly established. In the bill before us, they are not.
We all know that after the act come regulations, but we also understand the concerns of these large companies, because they occupy huge areas in all provinces of Canada, including Quebec.
I have mentioned some of the weaknesses of this bill. I wanted to avoid mentioning all the environmentalists who have doubts in this regard.
In Quebec, we have often acted reasonably. In the case of migratory birds—and this is a good example, because migratory birds come under federal jurisdiction—Quebec, in co-operation with private organizations and the federal government has, for decades now, done an exemplary job of managing these wetlands and migratory birds.
We are therefore able to co-operate, but we really want to call the shots in an area we are already handling fairly well. Nothing is perfect, I admit, but, as I say, we are handling it “fairly well”.
In conclusion, I wish to thank the member for Jonquière and congratulate her on the great job she has done for the environment.