Madam Speaker, Bill C-5 concerns the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. I would like to briefly put the bill in context.
Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the evolution of the earth over more than 4.5 billion years. This process created a wide selection of living organisms and natural environments on our planet. Together they form the ecosystems that we know today. Each one plays a specific role in the food chain and contributes to the biological balance of the planet.
However, in recent years scientists have been warning about the disappearance of certain species in increasing numbers, as well as the rise in the number of species facing extinction or extremely vulnerable species.
It is appropriate to have a debate on this legislation just after the list of species at risk of extinction in the country has grown to an all time high. In Canada the number of wild animals, plants, insects and marine organisms at risk of disappearing now stands at an all time high of 354. This is a stark reminder that our country's natural heritage is under threat. The rate at which species disappear from our planet speaks volumes to the overall health of our environment and ultimately our own human health. As we know, when species disappear from our planet it means that we could also disappear if we are not careful.
Worldwide we are experiencing the largest extinction epidemic since the time of the dinosaurs. Down through the ages an average of two or three species disappeared each year for natural reasons. Two or three species are now disappearing from the planet every hour. This is alarming and it is entirely due to the actions of human beings.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are aware that all Quebecers and Canadians are concerned about the protection of species at risk and about protecting and preserving the environment as a whole. We recognize that the fragile balance of the ecosystem must be protected and preserve.
In the past few years there has been a worldwide attempt to halt this phenomenon. Since the 1970s international agreements have been signed with a view to limiting trade in certain animal and plant species in order to protect them from extinction.
Cases in point include the 1971 convention on wetlands of international importance especially as a waterfowl habitat, better known as the RAMSAR convention, the 1973 convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and the 1979 convention on the conservation of migratory species of wild animals.
In 1992, at the Rio summit, many nations of the world, including Canada, signed the convention on biological diversity and made the commitment to “develop or maintain necessary legislation and/or other regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species and populations”.
Soon after that, the Liberals promised, in their red book, to ensure long term protection of species that live on our planet. In 1995 the Minister of the Environment introduced a bill in that spirit. The bill gave rise to an incredible amount of criticism and protest, mainly from environmental groups. One of the main objections to the bill had to do with the fact that the legislation would apply to federal territories only.
In 1996 the federal government proposed a Canada-wide agreement to the provincial and territorial ministers of the environment, the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk. In October 1996, the ministers responsible for wildlife gave agreement in principle.
At the time although the Quebec minister of the environment signed he issued an independent press release in which he made it clear he could not ignore the fact that the agreement would likely pave the way for overlap and that developments would have to be monitored very closely.
Members will tell me that it is a common event to have overlap between Quebec and the federal government. At that time, the provinces were very vocal in their criticism of the federal government for giving itself such broad powers on the protection of species.
Pollution and migration know no borders, so a concerted effort is required worldwide. Canada needs to better protect its species at risk.
To date, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, has designated 340 species of wildlife in Canada as being at risk. Of that total, 12 are extinct, 15 others are extirpated in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 threatened and 151 vulnerable.
With the increasing rate with which species are disappearing, the situation is serious. Effective action is therefore necessary. But has this bill really made a contribution to improving the protection of our ecosystem and of the endangered species in it?
Unfortunately the government and the minister are wrong about what their real role is in designing a realizable plan to provide such protection.
The government is but one of the many stakeholders, and it has not yet figured out that its true role is to build bridges between the various stakeholders, not walls. I must say that the federal government is far more interested in promising to build bridges when it is electioneering than in building bridges between stakeholders. It is extremely good at building walls, however. So that is what the true task of government is when it comes to endangered species, a task it has failed.
The bill on species at risk the Liberals have introduced will polarize and divide stakeholders much more than it will unite them.
Every action plan to protect species at risk must be based on respect, that is on respect for species living in our waters and our lands, and for those to whom they belong.
This bill is full of provisions providing discretionary power, to the point that, if it passes without amendment, it will be the weakest of its type in North America.
True to the Liberal style, Bill C-5 establishes officially the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as the ultimate authority in determining endangered species.
At the same time the bill prevents this committee, which makes decisions based on scientific data, from determining which species are in fact protected by law. The committee determines which are the endangered species, but will not be allowed under the bill to take steps to protect these species and to draw up a list of them.
The day the bill becomes law, there will be no more endangered species in Canada, at least officially. Not one species at risk today will be protected under this legislation, until the minister has established his list.
The current list of species at risk, the product of 23 years of work by COSEWIC, will not be considered a given and will not be automatically included in the law. When is an endangered species an endangered species? When the minister so decides, it seems.
What threatens species most is the loss of their habitat, where they live, reproduce and feed. Habitat loss is responsible for 80% of species decline in Canada. Passing a law that does not protect habitat is really a waste of parliament's time. Again Bill C-5 fails in this regard.
I mention as an example an issue I raised this week about what the Canadian forces are doing right now in Lake Saint-Pierre, in Quebec. We know that the government is still thinking about cleaning up Lake Saint-Pierre, which would indeed come under federal jurisdiction.
Under the provisions of this bill a species will be protected at the discretion of the Minister of the Environment. Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the division of powers as stated in the constitution and as interpreted over the years. This bill truly interferes in an area under provincial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces from any real and direct input into the process.
The main problem with this bill, which seems to be raised by all environmental groups, is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be taken by the minister and his cabinet, and not by scientists.
Considering the increasing rate of species extinction, the situation is serious. It is true that we must take effective measures, but does this bill really provide an additional protection that is enforceable? Will it really do something to improve the protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of them? In our opinion the answer to these two questions is no.
In fact we are opposed to this bill because it constitutes yet another direct intrusion into many areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. It even overlaps the act passed by Quebec in 1989, which works just fine and has already had a significant impact in our province. The federal government is again engaging in overlapping.
The bill could very well increase paper burden, instead of allowing for an efficient use of already scarce resources. This is what the federal government is currently specializing in: creating paper burden, instead of respecting everyone's jurisdictions and working more efficiently with less money.
Moreover, what the federal government calls a double safety net, that is two levels of government operating in the same jurisdiction, waters down the accountability of both and seriously complicates the assignment of responsibilities.
In conclusion, we recognize the need to improve the protection of our ecosystems and the endangered plant and animal species that constitute them, but we do not believe Bill C-5 is the way to go.
The Bloc Quebecois is opposing the principle of this bill today. However, we will examine it more thoroughly in committee and we will then be able to better define our position on this issue.