Debates of March 16th, 2001

Species At Risk Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by my hon. colleague and friend from Edmonton Southwest and thank him for his flattering remarks.

I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-5, the Liberal government's proposed endangered species protection act.

I would like to point out at the outset that I am currently seeking the input of the people of Surrey Central concerning this controversial bill. I am certain that the people I represent are in full support of protecting our environment and endangered species at risk, but I am not certain that we will support this legislation as is.

The government's previous attempt at passing this kind of legislation was a discriminatory and punitive bill, Bill C-33. It was very unfair to Canadian landowners. In the previous parliament I wanted to support that weak and confused legislation because of its intent, but I had such serious reservations about the strong arm tactics the government was using against Canadian landowners and farmers in order to protect species that I did not support the bill. The government was playing politics with our endangered species. It was not paying attention to the science involved and it was not going to properly compensate Canadians who also wanted to protect our endangered species.

In the new bill it seems that most of the flaws of the old bill are still in place. In anticipation of that, I have sent a message to my constituents asking them to advise me whether we will hold our noses and support this smelly bill or oppose it because of its undemocratic nature.

I have decided to oppose it until after the committee hearings. In the meantime we will see if the Liberals adopt any of the suggestions from the witnesses appearing before the committee or from the official opposition and the other opposition parties. We will see if the government conducts hearings on this bill once it has passed second reading and if witnesses will be given enough chances to come forward and express their positions.

I will briefly outline the chief concerns I have about the bill so far. First, we want to see effective legislation. That means we want to see a full review of the bill by the House and the committee. We do not want the Liberals to resort to using closure or to stifling debate so they can have the legislation passed by June.

Second, we need to see an emphasis on voluntary initiatives and partnerships. While the current bill is a slight improvement over the punitive American endangered species act, it can be made better. We know the American legislation has failed miserably. We need our legislation to be not only better but much better than the American legislation, which the Liberals are using as a template for what they are offering Canadians with the bill.

Third, we need to see science, not politics, used as the basis of the legal list of endangered species. The legal list must be left not to the discretion of the cabinet but to scientists.

Fourth, we need to see compensation regulations that are fair. These compensation regulations must be clearly spelled out in the bill. There should be provisions for full compensation, not just the 50% or the formula promised by the Liberals so far.

Fifth, we need to make sure the bill recognizes that protecting spaces is critical for protecting species, and species recovery action plans must consider socio-economic studies before recovery plans are developed.

Sixth, we need to see that transparency and accountability are improved, through the suggested round table in the bill being truly representative of all stakeholders and through equal application of the law to all Canadians regardless of race or creed.

Finally, we need to see that there are mechanisms in the bill to resolve disputes with the provinces. The Liberal government has never paid attention to developing relationships with provincial governments.

All Canadians want to help the environment. They want to protect biodiversity. We in the Canadian Alliance care about protecting species at risk and protecting or recovering critical habitat. Canadians recognize that we need a proactive approach to protect species at risk, one that is based on respect, respect for the species that inhabit our lands and waters and respect for those who own those lands. We want a common sense policy that considers the needs of all stakeholders.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species and to the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for use by current and future generations. The Canadian Alliance maintains that for any endangered species legislation to be effective, it must respect the fundamental rights of private property owners.

The people of Surrey Central, whom I represent, are from largely metropolitan or suburban areas. While we are not running the risk of having our land confiscated without compensation or without reimbursement of fair market value, we do not want any Canadian subjected to such unjust treatment.

In fact, far from working in a democratic way to help Canada's ranchers contribute to our nation's efforts to save our endangered species, the Liberals are promising punishment for those ranchers. My heart goes out to the farmers and ranchers, who are already overtaxed by the government and who are already suffering. They have huge input costs that are the fault of the government and its lack of vision. They have to compete at a disadvantage on world markets thanks to the government's poor record on international trade.

From what I have been told, the Liberals are now planning to take sometimes thousands of acres of land from individual Canadians without a fair process of compensation and under the threat of criminal charges.

In conclusion, the Canadian Alliance has two main concerns to be addressed in regard to the bill. The first is scientific integrity. Species listing must be determined by scientists, not by politicians. It should be determined by scientists and based on scientific fact. Our second concern deals with fair compensation. The Canadian Alliance believes there are a number of areas that can be strengthened in the bill in order to make it more accountable and transparent to the public.

At this time I feel strongly that the government has more work to do on the bill and I would like to see that work done before I support it, but again, I am not above voting the way my constituents want me to vote on this bill on their behalf.

[Marcel Gagnon, Bloc, Champlain, QC]

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.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

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.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to enter into this debate on behalf of my constituents in Elk Island. As the House knows I have a number of people in my area who are very interested in this legislation. Most of the concerns expressed to me deal with some of the things which my colleagues have already mentioned.

I remember growing up on a farm in Saskatchewan where we had the delight of having a dugout right in our yard. When I was a kid preserving water was one of the greatest things. With the dugout came all sorts of different animals such as birds, ducks and occasionally some geese. They would live right in our yard and we enjoyed them so much.

I should point out, in terms of a personal commitment, that my dad, my brother and I were always very careful not to interfere with the lives of these animals unless they declared war on us, which they did occasionally. For example, we had an ongoing war with rats which caused a lot of damage to our buildings, grain storage bins and so on. I know that when we buy a loaf of bread we do not want it to be infested with rat droppings and other things like that, so we had to take measures to fight them varmints.

There were other animals which gave us a lot of pleasure like the ducks that swam around on our pond. We watched mother duck raise her little ones.

On occasion we would accidentally disturb or sometimes even destroy, what is called under Bill C-5, the natural habitat of birds. We never did that deliberately. Whenever we saw a nest we would drive around it even though it meant perhaps not seeding that portion of the field. Sometimes we were not aware of it until we had driven over it and then it was too late. There was nothing we could do about it.

In Bill C-5 when that happens to a farmer maybe the penalty given to them will take into account the fact that there was nothing the farmer could have reasonably done to prevent such a loss. Yet the farmers in my area are very concerned that they may be subject to prosecution if they make an error like that.

My wife and I now live on an acreage east of Sherwood Park. I had a very interesting experience a couple of years ago. I was cutting my lawn with my little garden tractor. We have about an acre of lawn so it is a nice, fun project. I was driving along and I noticed this killdeer running around. I am aware that when a killdeer has a nest in the ground the mother does everything possible to try to distract a person away from it. If we are walking and that mother runs in that direction, we know that the nest is somewhere behind her.

I did everything possible to see whether I could find the nest before I proceeded to cut the grass. I could not find it. Eventually, I drove over it. Fortunately, I perfectly straddled it with the wheels of the tractor so that the nest was left undisturbed. Once I was able to determine where it was, it was protected until those little babies grew up and left home.

That is just the way we westerners are. We do not deliberately go out and kill animals whether they are endangered or not. For the Liberal government to bring down heavy-handed legislation which threatens all sorts of penalties and jail sentences to a farmer is really very offensive. We voluntarily do everything possible to prevent that, as I have indicated from my own personal experience.

However is there need for some legislation? I suppose there is. There are some who would deliberately destroy the lives of endangered species. Perhaps some restraints for them is a legitimate process of legislation, and I am not against that. However, the legislation should specifically say that if a specific move is made to destroy that life, then there should be penalties. We are very concerned about the application of the laws as they are going to be used.

Just as a little aside, where we live there is a lake with some exotic ducks. I have forgotten their name. Every year we have observers from all over North America who come and set up their little booths to watch this particular breed of duck. It is a very special thing. We enjoy the visitors, especially from the United States.

One day my wife and I were sitting at the kitchen table looking out on our backyard. There were probably 250 or 300 Canada geese that landed just right behind our house. It is one of their staging areas in their annual migrations. We saw a coyote coming out of the trees. It was very fascinating to watch. He put his tail way down and sort of slunk along because he was having goose for breakfast that day.

When he got close, he was not aware that every time there is a flock of geese, there are always two, three or more scouts out there while the others are busy looking for something to eat. There are always some geese with their heads up. They are looking and watching to see if anything is coming toward them. When he was probably about 15 to 20 metres away from the geese, somehow they must have given a signal and they all took off. It was so fascinating to see the coyote sitting there on his hind legs looking up and watching his breakfast disappear into the sky.

My wife was cheering for the geese. I, of course, was lamenting the coyote who was going hungry. We really enjoy wildlife in that way. It is definitely worth preserving. It is a policy with which we agree.

Coming back to the issue of rights and property, we want to let it go to committee so that the committee can deal with these things and bring in the amendments. We talked about amendments regarding the definition of endangered species and taking the politics out of that definition. Some of my colleagues have spoken about some of the other issues.

I want to talk specifically for a few minutes now about the right to own property. This is one of the high points of the Canadian Alliance policy. We believe that we should have assured in our charter of rights the right to own and enjoy personal property. That is not given to us in our present charter of rights and is something which the Liberal government seems dead set against because it means it would lose control over every citizen's life, if it could ever stop controlling every little thing that someone does.

I always thought it was an oxymoron or at least a contradiction in terms that the Liberals use the word liberal because it comes from the same root word that I think means liberation, freedom and liberty. Yet the Liberal government is more intent on controlling every aspect of our lives than any other government. It is a contradiction in terms.

I speak now on behalf of a number of residents in my riding who have expressed their concern with respect to compensation. They say that if portions of their land, where they make their livings, very meagrely these days I might add, have to be taken out of production, surely they should be entitled to full compensation for it. Bill C-5 does not permit that.

Bill C-5 says if their loss is more than 10%, it would be considered, but they would only get up to 50% of that. Which one of the Liberal members would accept it if someone came to his or her house and said the going value of the house was $200,000 but he or she would be given $100,000 for it. It was not a matter of take it or leave it, the member had to take it. There was no option. This is what is being offered to farmers for their property, their land and their source of livelihood. That is not good enough.

This has nothing to do about animals but it is about the government confiscating property. I remember when I was a kid on the farm. The government came along and said it was going to put a high tension power line through the property. The government actually said this to my brother who farms in Saskatchewan. There was this big dual pole property line and the soil was sterilized for about 30 metres in diameter from each pole, probably even more, diagonally across a field.

My brother had to work his machinery around those posts, and all that land was taken out of production. He did not get a fair value for the land nor for the production.

One of the big issues right now is that farmland is almost being given away because of the depression in the agricultural industry. If land which usually sells for $500 or $600 an acre is now selling for $200 because of this temporary, we hope, depression in the agricultural industry, what is fair market value? According to the bill, if we take half of it we are down to $100 an acre. That is not acceptable. That must be amended. I for one am going to vote against the bill, unless there is an amendment.

I could go on longer but I am going to terminate my speech out of deference for my colleagues who also wish to add some comments on the bill.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the time to speak on this issue. I will be sharing my time with the member for Medicine Hat.

I would like to take this opportunity, as it is my first chance to speak in the House of Commons since the election, to thank my constituents of Wild Rose for their overwhelming support by returning me to this place. I certainly appreciate their strong support. My appreciation for the Wild Rose people is certainly a good opening for the speech which I am about to make on endangered species.

As I looked through the constituency polls throughout most of Alberta, and particularly Wild Rose, the counts for the Liberal government were very low, so I can see why it would be anxious to get some kind of endangered species act in place. I can assure the hon. members across the way that if they are looking for more support in the west, they had better not even think about passing a bill of this nature. They must recognize those individuals who work hard and produce all kinds of good things for the nation. They work very hard to look after our environment, to look after our wildlife, and to look after the many things the bill is supposed to be addressing. For their own initiatives they should receive a lot of applause from that side of the House.

It is absolutely abhorrent the government introduces legislation that suddenly indicates to these same people that they are criminals if they do not shape up and follow the legislation. How in the world could it come up with legislation that points the finger at individuals who have worked hard all their lives protecting wildlife and endangered species and say that they are the people it will go after if they do not follow the Liberal law?

I do not know why the government left property rights out of the charter of rights. I have no idea. It is a disgrace that it did. It would be very beneficial if the House would consider some kind of legislation or amendment to get property rights back into a national constitution in some manner. Seeing it is not there, we have to do everything we can to protect these individuals from draconian legislation that simply says “obey us or become criminals”.

I immigrated to Canada some 30 years ago having spent a lot of time in the western part of the United States where I was born and raised. I saw legislation go through various governments there that was very similar to what I am holding in my hand today.

Each summer I have a chance to visit some of my relatives and friends in the United States I notice that various chunks of land are held in reserve under land management of the state of Idaho, the state of Wyoming or other states.

All this land used to be privately owned productive land. Some of the people who owned it and produced on it for years were friends of mine. They were removed from the property and were never compensated. After all the years of working their property, they are gone. They do not own it. It is now under land management of a particular state, the government, and they received no compensation. That is a devastating move to make.

What has happened as a result of that kind of legislation? Those who remained in ranching, farming and doing whatever they could to make a living, have adopted their own policy. It is called shoot, shovel and shut up. In other words, they do not worry any more about endangered species because the government will attack them if they announce that they need some assistance in helping to protect a certain species.

Out of fear alone they simply will not disclose any information to the authorities indicating that there might be a need for some good scientific work to preserve some species at risk. That is what that kind of legislation leads to.

Living in the little town of Sundre in the foothills of Alberta, I cannot say what a joy it is to go around that particular neck of the woods. I never know on any day what I might enjoy seeing in terms of wildlife or flocks of certain species. In our home one night my wife and I heard a rumbling in the furnace. We thought a mouse could have been caught in there. The next day we decided we should get brave enough to get at the furnace to see if we could get this mouse out.

[An hon. member]

I hope it was not a skunk.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Yes, we hoped it was not a skunk or something, but the noise kept going on during the night. The next morning when we got up we began to take the furnace apart, piece by piece, so we could locate the noise.

It so happened a bird got down our chimney, ended up in the furnace and fluttered around all night trying to get out. I did not realize it was a bird until I finally opened up the right area. It immediately flew out over my head and shoulders and enjoyed flying around our house for the next half hour as we attempted to get it outside. To this day we have no idea what kind of bird it was. I had not seen a bird like that for a long time. It was not covered with soot or anything and it was certainly an interesting beast.

I am wondering if I had called the government to help me in that situation whether I would have been charged for endangering the life of an endangered species. We thought it was a mouse and we were tempted to put poison in there to get rid of it.

My point is this. People in Canada, people in the land where I live, Alberta, really and truly enjoy wildlife and really and truly enjoy living in the foothills, where we never know from day to day what we might encounter. They certainly do not need legislation and direction from the mighty powers in the ivory towers of Ottawa on how to maintain their land and how to look after the kinds of things that we are talking about today.

Instead, the government will force through legislation that will make criminals out of good, honest people who love wildlife and who love this country. Once again the Liberals will go way down in the polls, and if I am fortunate enough to run again I am sure I will get an even bigger majority, so maybe I should thank the government for this kind of stupid legislation. In the meantime, welcome to Canada, the land of shoot, shovel and shut up.

[Monte Solberg, Canadian Alliance, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a real pleasure to rise today to address the legislation. I wish to begin by acknowledging the efforts of some people in my riding who have really done a lot to draw attention to the problems with this piece of legislation. They represent the Brooks and District Chamber of Commerce and brought forward a resolution dealing with concerns over the government's endangered species legislation to their Alberta chamber and ultimately to the Canadian chamber.

I would like to mention some of them by name: John Nesbitt, Mara Nesbitt, Don Bruce, John Petrie, Clint Hendrickson and Terry Magnussen. They have all served on the board of the Brooks and District Chamber of Commerce and have really worked hard to try to improve the bill. At one point I believe they even had a meeting with the minister and urged him to consider some of the things that were just mentioned by my friend from Wild Rose and by others who have spoken today.

One of the things that concerns me most is the government's know-it-all attitude. For 100 years, people in Alberta have settled the land and have gone out of their way to protect the environment. I just cannot emphasize that enough. My friends have referred to that, but I want to say it again.

When one drives through our part of southern Alberta, one see a lot of farms and ranches. Invariably on those farms and ranches one can see where farmers have put up shelter belts, where animals now have habitat, and one can see, especially in my part of the world, a lot of irrigation. That irrigation ends up creating all kinds of habitat on the corners of fields. We see sloughs which would not otherwise exist that are full of cattails and full of pheasant and the animals that feed on pheasant, such as coyotes and all kinds of foxes. There are a lot of foxes coming back into the area.

People want to preserve that. They like the wildlife just as much as the people do in the big cities and in those parts of the world that will not be as heavily affected by the legislation as the people in the rural areas will be. It is critical the people understand that.

We have a number of Ducks Unlimited projects in the area where I live. Every year at the Brooks Ducks Unlimited dinner, $70,000 is raised by auctioning prints and all kinds of different donated items. It has created an unbelievable string of sloughs, or marshes which is the term people here use, that go for miles through our part of the world. As a result, deer and antelope have access to water. There are all kinds of ducks, geese, muskrat and beaver that are able to enjoy that as habitat. That is something people voluntarily do.

We have a program called Operation Burrowing Owl. We preserve pieces of land voluntarily so that burrowing owls have a place to establish a habitat.

My point is that for many years people in Alberta, and certainly in my area, have gone out of their way to protect habitat. What bothers me is that, although there have been consultations this time, the minister was not listening. The fact that these groups went out of their way to protect this habitat is simply not reflected in the legislation.

The other element that is critical to people is the issue of compensation. According to one report that was requested by the minister, there was a suggestion that the government should pay a compensation of up to 50% of the losses for people who would have their land set aside for habitat. Fifty per cent is absolute theft.

What happens when it is the law makers who break the law? There is a natural law that should guide this country which says that if we take something from somebody then we pay them full compensation, not half. We are in a situation where the government is effectively saying that it is going to take people's livelihood.

I want to remind people that, while we are having a debate in this place, farmers are going through one of the roughest periods in their history. It is a terrible time, where they are struggling to make it.

The government is adding insult to injury by saying to the farmers, as they struggle with some of the lowest commodity prices in history, that it will be putting in place legislation that would limit the compensation they get to half of what they actually deserve, according to fair market value. That is ridiculous. It leads to the sort of consequences my friend mentioned a minute ago, where farmers will say that if it comes down to their survival or the survival of these animals, then these animals will have to go. We then get this perverse situation where we get completely the opposite results of what was intended.

I will wrap up by acknowledging the work of people in my riding who have done so much. There are many cattlemen in the riding who have gone to great lengths to point out some of the flaws. Tom Livingstone who is a cattleman has pointed out some of the problems. I would urge the government at this point to consider some of the things that have been raised and not push this forward over the objections of the people who actually have to live with it.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until the usual time of adjournment on Monday, April 19.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Discussions have taken place between all parties and there is an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) to further defer the recorded division requested on second reading of Bill C-5 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, March 20.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Criminal Code

[Randy White, Canadian Alliance, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

moved that Bill C-240, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prohibiting certain offenders from changing their name), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, Bill C-240 would prohibit serious offenders from changing their names, provided of course that they get direction from the courts.

One would wonder why on earth this is a particular issue. It is unfortunate, by the way, that the bill is not votable because I do believe it would pass. I guess the issue of private members' business not being votable and yet being debated is a subject for another day. What the final outcome of that will be, I will never know.

The reason this issue has been raised for several years now, in fact for about eight years, is that I have been working with people throughout the country, starting with a lady by the name of Rosie in Windsor, Ontario, who was assaulted by an individual and left for dead. The individual was put in prison. He promptly changed his name and all his ID. He was released from prison, unbeknownst to her. She was not told anything. He came back to town with a new driver's licence, new ID, new everything, and began once again to stalk her.

I looked at that situation with her and found it to be accurate and true. When I made a bit of noise about it in the House of Commons, a number of letters started to trickle in about similar circumstances. Then lots of letters started to come in, so I did a fairly intensive bit of research and found that it was actually becoming common practice in the country. My findings show that the people who are doing it more often than not are sex offenders.

Next week I will be making a national presentation on all individuals who will be eligible next year for section 745 early release. They are first degree murderers looking for the old faint hope clause. We have done a fair bit of research on it, as we have every other year since the beginning. I find from looking at the first page of the list that two of the four people have applied for name changes in anticipation of moving into our society again.

One of them is Darren Andrew Kelly, a.k.a. Ryan Scott Brady. Anybody who knows about this fellow knows he is one dude who should not be out on our streets, much less have a name change and the opportunity to have his identity hidden while he is out in our subdivisions and communities. He is serving a life sentence for the rape and murder of a three year old girl in Sechelt. The girl was abducted from a motel room, molested and then murdered. Kelly is also considered to be the person responsible for the beating death of young Aaron Kaplan of Vancouver. Kelly is believed to have also molested the Kaplan boy before killing him by bludgeoning him about the head and chest with a 40 pound chunk of concrete. He sought the name change while in prison in Saskatchewan.

I sincerely hope that the individual who is no doubt going to speak against this from the Liberal side does not rag on isolated incidents and look for the extreme cases. I can assure the other side that is not the case. I have list upon list of all of these individuals, or many of them. In fact, I could not spend enough time tracking all these people down because there were so many of them. Suffice it to say that some of Canada's worst sex offenders, oftentimes not murderers but serious sex offenders who have done all sorts of things, are on this list.

I want to talk about Robert Gordon Stevens. The logic in this case is absolutely beyond me. Robert Gordon Stevens was a very serious sex offender who abused children. He went to prison. He met a fellow in another prison who was also a serious sex offender and who had changed his name from Willoughby to Oatway. Stevens and Willoughby-Oatway met in another prison and had themselves a little arranged matrimonial ceremony while in prison. Stevens then changed his name to Oatway, which meant that Robert Gordon Stevens became Bobby Gordon Oatway and Willoughby was also named Oatway. Bobby Oatway is the result of this. Bobby left prison and admitted to the public that not only was he a serious sex offender, a well known fact in British Columbia, but also that he was in his crime cycle.

A lot of things happened and he moved back in, but while we were dealing with this issue under the name of Bobby Oatway I had a call from a lady in Quesnel who said she did not think he was Bobby Oatway. She said that she had been one of his victims and his name was Gordon Stevens. We traced it and found out what had happened.

It is far too easy for serious sex offenders to hide in our society as it is, much less to allow serious offenders to change their names while in prison, while in the custody of Canada.

The bill makes provision for the courts to disallow individuals, where the circumstances involve serious crime, from changing their names or hiding their identities for a certain period. That way we can give some assurance to the public that if these offenders are out in public they are at least not disappearing as easily as the present kinds of technicalities allow.

I hope that some day the bill will come to the House of Commons and be voted on, because I find it passing strange in this country and in the House of Commons that the bill would not be passed and that we are having a change of heart on the national sex offender registry as well. The government says yes, it will develop a registry, but then says it already has one, which is not the case.

[An hon. member]

That's not what the police say.