My colleagues opposite just applauded. We do have an endangered species act in Quebec. Government members, including the Minister for International Trade, have just recognized by their applause that the matter is of vital importance.
Since our colleagues opposite are satisfied with the endangered species act, I will now talk about the bill on species at risk in Canada.
I must first remind the House that a number of international conventions inevitably led to Canada introducing this legislation. We wish this legislation had been quite different, but it inevitably had to be introduced in the House.
There are three or four reasons that justified the introduction of this bill in the House. First, on the international level, one has to remember the signing of the convention on wetlands, which is of international importance. This convention is quite important since at least 30% of species in Canada live in that kind of habitat and land.
A second important reason relating to commitments made by Canada at the international level is the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, which clearly required the introduction of this type of legislation in each country.
A third reason is, of course, the convention on conservation on migratory species of wild fauna, but the fundamental reason which also led to the introduction of the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in Quebec is the 1992 convention on biodiversity. That convention stated clearly that countries had to introduce and bring into force legislative provisions to protect species at risk.
Why introduce legislation on species at risk and why give so much importance to this type of legislation? I said this type of legislation, not necessarily this piece of legislation. Why? Because we have witnessed a significant reduction in biodiversity over the last few years.
Our methods of producing and consuming have significantly altered our ecosystems. This has resulted in a significant reduction in organisms living in these ecosystems, which means that it also has an impact on species at risk. Of course, all this has an impact on the food chain.
All the different changes we made in our production methods have had an effect on biodiversity, and this is why we had to take measures to protect our species.
Legislation to protect species at risk is essential. However, we would have liked legislation that respects certain frameworks, not only a legislative framework, but also a constitutional framework.
It must be remembered that four provinces already have endangered species legislation. They are Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick and, of course, Quebec.
These provinces have passed a number of measures to identify and legally designate endangered species, and to implement programs and plans, like recovery plans, to ensure the continuity of our ecosystems and aquatic and plant habitats, and to ensure these species are not put at risk or made vulnerable.
In 1989 Quebec passed its own endangered species legislation. This was ground breaking legislation in those days. As I said earlier, the convention on biodiversity was not signed until 1992.
Before the signing of the international convention on biodiversity, calling for changes to legislation to protect endangered species, Quebec had already passed its own legislation, which was welcome by environmentalists and interested parties.
This legislation was meant to be and was flexible, because it was respectful of property holders and landowners. Its purpose was to identify and legally designate endangered species, and to provide a number of recovery plans to protect their habitat.
Quebec went even further in protecting endangered species. Later on, Quebec took two more measures: the fishery regulations and an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife. The goal of these three fundamental measures was to protect and preserve the species as well as the aquatic, plant and animal environments.
In no way, shape or form does the bill introduced in the House respect the forward looking approach taken by Quebec in 1989.
I cannot wait to see what decision some of the members opposite will come to. I cannot wait to see what the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who was a minister in 1989 under Robert Bourassa when the legislation was passed, will do. I cannot wait to see what the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, who supported the legislation and urged the opposition to pass it, will do. They have introduced, supported and defended this kind of legislation.
These federal Liberal members from Quebec are about to vote for a federal bill that will duplicate the Quebec legislation and will infringe upon areas of provincial jurisdiction concerning the protection of critical habitat. We will see what the federal members from Quebec will decide. Chances are, they will show their true colours.
We will see what is going on when we will compare the two pieces of legislation, when we take the time to read through the bill the Minister of the Environment introduced a few weeks ago and compare it to the Quebec legislation. We will have to take into consideration not only the Quebec legislation on endangered species, but also the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife and the regulations. That is when we will realize all the overlap there is. The first example of overlap deals with the identification of the species.
The federal act formalizes the status of COSEWIC, that is the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. So far, the committee has legally identified over 340 endangered species.
If someone told me today that Quebec does not have a committee to identify these threatened plant species, I would say that this double net is justified. We need a double net and there is one in place. It is in the form of an advisory committee made up of scientists. It is not a phoney committee, but an advisory committee made up of scientists who work at identifying the animal and plant species that are vulnerable and threatened.
In Quebec the advisory committee on threatened species works in close co-operation with COSEWIC. It works in such close co-operation with COSEWIC that Quebec signed a harmonization agreement on threatened and endangered species. The Quebec government signed that harmonization agreement back in 1996. At the time, it said “Quebec has an act and we will co-operate”.
Where is that harmonization agreement? Where is the federal government's pledge to respect provincial jurisdictions, to respect Quebec's legislation, as stated in the 1996 harmonization agreement? Whatever happened to that spirit of co-operation? Today, what we have before us is a bill that interferes in provincial jurisdictions. This is totally unacceptable.
If I were told that Quebec does not have a recovery plan for threatened species, I would say that there is a reason for having a double net. I would say that Quebec is not doing its job and lacks legislation, but the fact of the matter is that Quebec has recovery plans. The argument for the double net does not hold water. Quebec has a recovery strategy for when a species that is endangered is identified and its habitat must be protected in order to ensure survival.
The second aspect is the recovery plans, as proposed by the federal government. Quebec has one in its legislation.
The third aspect is compensation. This is pure improvisation here. One wonders why the federal government did not fully accept the recommendations of the Peter Pearse report, including that for 50% compensation of farmers and land owners. There was none of this. At the briefings, we asked the departmental staff what the principle of compensation was. The answer was “We are not really sure”. This is total improvization.
There are two basic reasons we are strongly opposed to this bill. I can assure the House that we are going to work very hard in committee to ensure that it does not get through.
First of all, because we believe that the entire habitat issue is a provincial responsibility.
Second, because we want the federal government to keep its word to respect Quebec legislation, which it gave when the harmonization agreement on endangered species was signed in 1996.
We call upon it to respect its signature and to ensure that the Quebec legislation is respected. This bill is headed toward duplication and overlap and, dare I say, perhaps a court challenge as well.