Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the species at risk bill, a bill which I join my Canadian Alliance colleagues in opposing.
Some people will say that by opposing Bill C-5 we demonstrate our lack of respect for biodiversity in Canada and the world. Some people will say that we do not care about protecting endangered species in Canada. This is false.
We care about the environment and we do so in a realistic and responsible manner. Alliance members recognize that legislation like Bill C-5 will fail and fail badly if it does not recognize some basic truths.
The first of these is that to be successful, species at risk legislation has to have a buy in from landowners and stakeholders at all levels. Enforcement to protect animals facing extinction will always be necessary, but the amount of enforcement needed dramatically decreases when there is voluntary reporting and co-operation with law enforcement.
There will be little interest in co-operation if landowners and stakeholders are not guaranteed compensation for losses incurred as a result of species protection.
The bill does allow for compensation, but only at the minister's discretion. This provides absolutely no assurance that the government will compensate for land lost to development.
This type of arrangement is typical of the members opposite. Time after time legislation is introduced without any clear intention of how it will work in the field.
Many ranchers and farmers across the country could lose their livelihood due to the discovery of endangered species on their lands. Frankly, this trust us philosophy is just not enough. Ranchers and farmers can look to the environmental movement and find strong allies against the trust us mentality put forward by the government.
Environmentalists have rightly said that it is scientists, not politicians, that should establish the list of endangered species. Organizations like COSEWIC have a longstanding reputation of using scientific data to make these decisions.
The Canadian Alliance supports following a scientifically determined list, not a politically motivated one. We do not support giving the Canadian government the final say, but only to clearly express why it has disallowed a species that was on the scientific list. Without a clear and compelling reason from the government, the list from organizations like COSEWIC would stand. We believe this would insulate these organizations from political pressuring that would interfere with their research.
Instead, the government will have complete discretionary power as to what species are put on the list. The Liberals think they know better than the biologists. They advise us we should just trust them, that they know what to do.
A democracy does not function because its citizens blindly trust the government. It functions when we have a transparent government that clearly defines fundamental aspects of our law.
In the case of Bill C-5 there are no more important questions than these: What species will be protected? What compensation will be put forward to protect those species?
Like the scientific listing, clear compensation guidelines are required. Blind expressions of trust are simply not acceptable. There are at least two reasons for this.
The first reason is admittedly practical. If we do not reassure Canadians of compensation for their losses, we risk a lack of reporting. Without the surety of being reimbursed, some landowners will not report sightings to the proper authorities. Obviously this is not right. As a society we all benefit from the protection of our biodiversity. I am sure members can appreciate that when faced with the destruction of their livelihood, some Canadians will fail to report.
Consider the following scenario: An endangered species is accidentally killed by farm machinery and later discovered by a landowner. Under Bill C-5 the farmer has no assurance if he contacts Environment Canada that he will be treated fairly. If it is found that the species is resident in his entire field, he will likely be ordered to cease and desist all commercial activity. Will he be compensated under this scheme? Who knows? Trust us, the government says. Some will, but many will not.
As a result, the species might never get reported. Instead of one dead, an entire population might be wiped out, all of this because the government refused to deal fairly with Canadian landowners from the start.
Worse still, it is possible that landowners would seek to destroy habitat simply to prevent endangered species from taking up residence. We know this has happened in the United States following passage of their endangered species legislation. It could just as easily happen here.
From a purely practical standpoint the government is inviting our own citizens to not report the presence of species at risk. This would simply put them more at risk. Let us work with stakeholders and landowners. Let us provide them the peace of mind they deserve. This peace of mind would translate into better protection for environment than vague pleas for trust.
Compensation is not needed just for practical reasons. There is also a moral imperative: a recognition that the ownership of one's person, one's possessions and yes, one's land are sacred. It is for this reason that native land claims need to be settled in good faith in my home province of British Columbia.
The rights to our own property should not have to be debated every time we stand to debate a bill in the House. They should be enshrined in the constitution. However, we are not here to reopen the constitution. That would be a long affair. The government cannot even respect provincial rights in the current constitution so I would hate to confuse them even more.
I am an optimist. Even though property rights are not in the constitution I would think members opposite would support the principle that individual Canadians should be able to own their own property and to have free use of it. The protection of endangered species is in all of our common interests. Sometimes we must impinge on the use or ownership of private land to do this. All we ask is that the government do so only as a last resort and that we compensate landowners fairly for their loss. The Liberals tell us to trust them instead of agreeing to this principle.
The Liberals have given us a billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC, including the enticement of a business into the minister's riding with $1.6 million of HRDC grants. The minister remains in her position. The government has given us a minister of public works who appeared to have serious conflict of interest charges over the Canada land corporation. He has been rewarded with the position of ambassador to Denmark. The government brought us Shawinigate. The architect of that boondoggle is still our Prime Minister.
Are these things against the conflict of interest guidelines for cabinet ministers? We do not know. The government refuses to release the guidelines. It says we should trust it. Now the government wants Canadians to trust it on endangered species, on compensation and on listing. Based on past experience I think we should get it in writing.