Madam Speaker, it is extremely important for me to speak today on this piece of legislation. It is certainly important to people in my constituency: farmers, ranchers, people in the oil and gas business, people who have cottages at lakes and even those living in towns who may run into serious problems in the ownership and use of their property through this legislation.
I owe it to those people, who supported me so well in the past election, to speak on their behalf.
I do not believe there is any party in the House that does not take seriously the issue of protecting species at risk, although I wonder why it has taken the government seven years to finally bring in the legislation. Of course, it has not passed yet and, I would suggest, should not pass without some serious amendments. However, we will work on that by offering some of our suggestions, which is what I am here to do today.
Speaking quite openly and honestly, I think every member in the House wants to protect species at risk and endangered species. That is not the issue. The issue is whether Bill C-5, the legislation presented by the government, will in fact do that.
I will approach the issue from two points of view and deal with two key parts of the legislation which would determine whether, as it is, it would protect even one species at risk or endangered species. I suggest that it will not. I will use evidence from other countries to back that up. However, I will not leave it at that. I will also offer a positive approach to fixing the bill so that it will work.
The first point I want to make concerns the issue of fair market value compensation. The second point concerns using a co-operative approach to saving species rather than a heavy-handed approach. As I go through those two points it will certainly show that the legislation can be changed to make it work.
I just want to read what the Canadian Alliance has to say about species at risk, endangered species and the environment generally. It is just a short statement. The Canadian Alliance says:
We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, and to sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.
Is that not what the endangered species legislation is supposed to be about?
The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species legislation to be effective it must respect the fundamental rights of private property owners.
That is the issue I will deal with first. I will approach it not only from the point of view that the legislation tramples on private property ownership rights but also that taking that approach will cause the legislation to fail. I believe it will cause it to fail to save even one species. I will use evidence to indicate that.
We are asking that if a piece of property, be it farmland, a cottage at the lake or a piece of commercial property being developed, is taken from someone in the name of protecting a species at risk, which in some cases makes sense and must be done, then compensation should be made at fair market value.
What principle could possibly lead the government to suggest that compensation be anything less than fair market value? It seems to me that most Canadians respect that as a value on which to base legislation.
If the use of property, be it a cottage at the lake or farmland, is curtailed in some way in the name of saving a habitat or a species at risk, then let it happen within reason. Let us ensure that compensation for the loss of the use of that property is at fair market value.
If the government would change the legislation and put in it clearly that compensation would be at fair market value, it would have gone a long way to making the legislation work.
I will look practically at a couple of things that are likely to happen and that have happened in other countries where legislation has not offered fair market value compensation. I would like everyone to think of a farmer, for example, who has a piece of property where a habitat for a species at risk is found. The farmer loses part of the property or the use of part of it without fair compensation.
If farmers or ranchers know that if a species at risk is found on their property they will lose the property or the use or benefit of it without fair market value compensation, what are they likely to do? I suggest they would do everything they could to ensure the species or habitat was never found. Does a piece of legislation that would lead to this type of action sound productive? I suggest it is not. That is why it must be changed.
The legislation must be amended to have a guarantee of fair market value compensation. A farmer, rancher or someone who owns a cottage at the lake will respect and protect species if they know the legislation ensures compensation at fair market value. That is a fundamental issue which is key to making the legislation work.
If the government continues to push the legislation through without making that amendment, then it will fail. We can point to examples in the United States. A lot of Americans and Canadians are shocked that this government has tailored its legislation to the American endangered species legislation.
I will use a couple of quotes. The first is about the American endangered species act. It is by Bruce Vincent, president of Alliance for America, and he cares about protecting endangered species. He said:
We've watched in horror as Canada tries to replicate the mistakes we've made down here.
That is from an American on his shock that Canada is using as a model American legislation which has failed miserably.
The next quote is from the U.S. National Wilderness Institute. It said:
Though unmeasured, the costs of implementing the Act as currently written are in the multi-billions, yet in over twenty years not a single endangered species has legitimately been recovered and delisted as a result of the Endangered Species Act.
That quote is from the U.S. National Wilderness Institute. It cares about protecting wilderness and species.
Clearly, they understand that the American legislation will not work. They also understand that the Canadian legislation, which is modelled after the American legislation, simply will not work.
What I am doing today is offering suggestions that would change the legislation to make it work. That is the bottom line and it is what all of us want here. We want legislation which will work to protect endangered species. These changes will help that.
Let us start by ensuring in legislation fair market value compensation for property loss or for property where the benefit is lost. That is the first fundamental principle that is not respected in the legislation and which must be respected.
Second, a far more effective type of species at risk legislation would be one that used a co-operative approach rather than the heavy-handed approach the government has used.
I will refer to a few examples from around the world where co-operative approaches have worked. In western Canada, we have Operation Burrowing Owl, a voluntary operation that does not take a heavy-handed approach. Ranchers and farmers across Saskatchewan and parts of Alberta have voluntarily and willingly participated in the operation because they care about the environment and about protecting endangered species.
About 500 farmers have agreed to have their land kept in a state that will protect the habitat of the burrowing owl. That is a co-operative way of ensuring we save species at risk. It works. This legislation will not work.
A second example is the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Whether these species are at risk or not, the principle works the same. It is a co-operative way where people across North America have protected habitat or waterfowl using the voluntary approach. It is extremely effective.
Ducks Unlimited has proven that its program works and works well. I have not heard much complaining from farmers who have been asked to take part. They willingly take part. There is compensation involved. It works because it is co-operative and because they care about species at risk.
Putting in place a piece of legislation that encourages and allows a voluntary approach will cause species to be saved, which is the bottom line.
One more category of voluntary approach that works involves private ownership of property. Private groups and individuals have taken initiatives, that are allowed under their legislation, that have really worked. The first is in limited areas of Alabama and Florida where private groups and individuals can create their own reefs. Because it is a private thing, guess what? It really does protect and develop the reef habitat, and it has been extremely effective.
There are lists of examples of voluntary approaches from almost every continent. I do not know of any from Antarctica but I know of them from every other continent, and they work.
In 1980, land was purchased by a privately owned nature conservancy in California to form the Kern River Preserve. This preserve harbours one of the rarest ecosystems: a riparian habitat with a number of rare wildlife species dependent on riparian forests. The managers of the preserve have worked to develop the trust of neighbouring landowners. They do not enforce or use the heavy hand of the law. They do not say that they will take away property without fair market value compensation. They have worked to gain the trust of neighbouring landowners to make the project work and it has worked. Species have been saved.
In spite of this fact, in spite of this evidence and in spite of the government knowing this evidence, has it altered this legislation to include these two important issues?
The first issue deals with compensation of fair market value, not just some broad statement that there may be compensation at some level. That is no comfort to someone who may have their property taken away or the use of it denied.
The second issue is the use of a co-operative approach without the heavy hand of the law hanging over them. I would suggest that if the government were to focus this legislation more on these two areas it would work.
Evidence from other countries around the world shows that this type of legislation will not work. In the name of protecting species at risk, I ask the government to amend the legislation to include the two important points I brought up today.
I am proud and happy to speak on behalf of my constituents and other people right across Canada whom I have heard from over the past five years, since I have been dealing with government legislation to protect endangered species. I am proud to stand on their behalf to propose these changes which will lead to the protection of endangered species and species at risk right across Canada.