Debates of April 16th, 2002

Species at Risk Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend for the speech he just gave. I want to congratulate him on how he concluded, because it is an excellent point.

I really have to ask the question, what are we doing here? The reason I ask the question is this: We are the highest court in the land, higher, in my judgment, than the supreme court. We stand on the shoulders of 900 years of common law and here we are about to pass legislation that flies in the face of that.

Fundamental justice decrees that if we take somebody's property, we provide compensation for it, but we do not do that in the legislation. That is what makes me crazy, because when the Liberals had the chance to hear thoughtful discussion about this in committee they actually voted in favour of an amendment that stated the minister shall provide compensation if property is taken out of production in order to protect an endangered species. Then the government changed “shall” back to “may” again and took out reference to regulation, so it leaves it completely open ended. That is so disturbing to me, because we have substituted the old Roman credo “Let justice be done though the heavens may fall” for some new credo that states “Let the Liberal red book be done though common law and fundamental justice may fall”. That is what is happening and it is so disturbing to me and to other people who believe that we have a higher calling in this place, a calling other than to just push through things that might be politically popular. It is wrong to do this. It is completely, fundamentally wrong to push this through without providing compensation.

I want to attach a very important caveat. My friend spoke a moment ago about how important endangered species are to people in rural areas. I live out in the country and there is nothing I enjoy more in the morning than walking my dog down to what we will euphemistically call a stream. It is an irrigation canal. There are cattails, bulrushes, willows and poplar trees. It is beautiful and I love going down there. There are all kinds of wildlife and I appreciate the wildlife so much. One of the things I am proudest of is that my boys know a little bit about wildlife because I have taught them, just like my father taught me. I respect wildlife. I love going into Waterton every year with my son and enjoying the wildlife. It has become part of what we do as a family.

In some ways that is what is so enraging about this legislation. The legislation is such that it treats people in rural areas like a bunch of bumpkins who could not care less about protecting endangered species and that is completely untrue. The people I know in my community around Brooks, Alberta, and Medicine Hat and Manyberries go out of their way to protect these species. They do what they can to find ways to accommodate them. When we are treated like we do not respect them, as if for a hundred years we have somehow ignored endangered species, it is completely contrary to all the evidence.

In this grouping we have talked about consultation. If true consultation were done, not just consultation where people come in and speak, but where we actually respond and listen to what they say, first there would be a recognition that these people are the first line of defence when it comes to being stewards of the land and protecting these endangered species. Second, there would be an acknowledgement that if we take away someone's property we provide them with full compensation.

When a municipality puts a road through someone's property, by law it has to provide fair market compensation. That makes sense to everyone. It is based on that 900 years of common law that I talked about a minute ago. However, if the government takes away someone's grazing land or farmland to protect an endangered species, it does not have to provide any compensation at all, which is so wrong. I cannot believe that people who are lawmakers in this place can abide that. It is ridiculous that we would allow that to happen if we really believe that we are sent here to make and uphold the law. Why are we doing this if we really believe that? It is wrong, but still we persist in doing it.

This year we are celebrating the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights and freedoms. I regret deeply that property rights are not part of the charter of rights and freedoms. However, when will we celebrate 900 years of common law? That is the basis for the charter. Our entire political system is based on common law, but yet we do not celebrate that. In fact, it seems to me that we have done our best to ignore it even though it is fundamental to having a free society, a society based on the rule of law and order and those things that have made Canada a great country, the best country in the world.

We are prepared to abridge that fundamental right today and over the next few days in order to push through a campaign promise made by the government. That is not a good enough reason. There has to be a better reason to abridge a law as fundamental as property rights, the right to enjoy and use one's own property, than pushing through something that may be politically popular, even when there is a remedy at hand, which is to provide full and fair compensation. That is all we ask.

I know my time is not long, but I want to leave off where my friend left off. The government is driving a wedge between its rural citizens and the government itself. It is driving a wedge between rural citizens and itself by what people have now come to think of as law that is unjust. We wonder why there is so much cynicism about the charter in so many parts of the country and about the supreme court and all of that. The reason is this fundamental lack of respect for basic justice.

[An hon. member]

Because of the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is because of this government and previous Liberal governments.

Basic, fundamental law requires that people be compensated when their legally obtained property is taken away from them. It is that straightforward: Let justice be done though the heavens may fall. That has to be our approach if we want to maintain some kind of order in society. If we do not do it, we will have the American experience, where people, though they love the wildlife on their property, if it comes down to their livelihood and looking after their family or protecting those species, I can tell members which side they will come down on. They will protect their family.

If they sense for a moment that their property will become valueless or will be taken away from them to some degree and as a result they will lose their livelihood because they will get no compensation, then the American experience will be repeated here. That will mean that all the species on that land will be wiped out. It will be a situation in which people actually will go out and get rid of endangered species, which will become a liability. If that happens, the responsibility will rest on this government because it is the Liberals who are pushing through this bill without any recognition for the fact that people have paid for their property through their hard work and their efforts. They own that property and the government is going to take it away without compensation. Again, that is wrong.

My friend across the way is looking at me and rolling her eyes, but I have to say that this is what this issue boils down to. Let me pose this question to my friend across the way. Why would the government change that amendment that we passed in committee? Why would it not agree to pay full and fair compensation when that was offered to them in committee? The government is preparing to allow people, in some cases, to get rid of endangered species on their property if they have to save their property. That is what it boils down to.

I regret very deeply that the government has driven this wedge between itself and its citizens. I regret that it is prepared to undermine fundamental and basic justice, common law, but it appears that the government is prepared to do that. If the government does that, the consequences are on its head.

[Dick Proctor, NDP, Palliser, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on Bill C-5.

This is the third version of species at risk legislation that has been brought before parliament in recent years and there is one common theme that runs through them all. Each time they are introduced the legislation is weaker than the previous time.

On this occasion there were a number of good amendments from a hardworking environment committee, one that I participated in briefly. There were countless hours put in on that committee in its deliberations. It came forward with a number of amendments and as we heard today virtually all of them have been gutted and undercut by the cabinet members opposite.

It seems to me that what the speaker who just concluded his remarks and others are saying and what cabinet is doing by its actions is that the legislation is too important to be left in the hands of legislators. That is an extremely unfortunate occurrence. We are sent here from 301 ridings across the country to do our jobs to the best of our abilities.

In this case the environment committee came together, worked hard, proposed a number of good amendments including compensation for ranchers and farmers and then the cabinet turned around and said in effect that it did not really care what the environment committee thought. The government said it would be this way. It really diminishes the relevance of the House of Commons, this institution, and the whole democratic process.

On the species at risk act, SARA, we are experiencing the largest extinction epidemic worldwide since the time of the dinosaurs. Scientists believe we could lose a quarter of our species on earth within the next three decades if we do not change course.

We have serious endangered species problems of our own. Twenty-seven have already gone extinct in Canada in the past century and a half. We have more than 350 species known to be at risk and the list grows year after year. Some of the animals that are at risk are: the beluga whale; the woodland cariboo; the burrowing owl, which we have in the riding I represent in Saskatchewan; and the grizzly bear. All these species could vanish in coming decades unless and until we take strong steps to protect them. The legislation is long overdue.

I will turn briefly to Group No. 4 that is under discussion today. We feel that none of the changes are more offensive than the amendments that are proposed that remove the ability of the first nations to have input into the implementation of the species at risk act. There were a number of proposed amendments made at the time and they have all been gutted. These amendments were made by the Metis, the Dene, the Inuit, and other first nations. It is a sad commentary what has transpired since the committee reported before Christmas.

I would like to mention the Rio summit of 10 years ago. There was political courage demonstrated and political capital risked at the earth summit at Rio in 1992 when Canada was a signatory to the creation of laws aimed at protecting the vulnerable species. I happened to hear the former environment minister speaking on CBC last Friday and referring to the decade of neglect, which was her phrase, and what transpired since the Rio summit of 1992. The government office came into power late in 1993 and virtually nothing has happened in the intervening 10 years since that occurrence.

This is in sharp contrast to what is happening in other countries. Mexico has made the protection of critical habitat mandatory. Canada is only proposing to make it discretionary. A species would enjoy protection under the provision of this law at the pleasure of the environment minister. If a species were deemed worthy of protection there would remain a period, which could be as long as 30 months, before the habitat would actually be protected, and only the residents, the nest or the den would be protected in the interim.

I want to say a word or two about property rights. I acknowledge that I come from a riding which contains a mix of both rural and urban. I want to address the real concerns that people have in the riding of Palliser about the law which if passed would affect them.

Our party believes that people must be compensated if their lives are affected by this plan to rescue any endangered species. Landowners must be assured that they are not facing personal loss in order to protect habitat. If land is purchased it has to be with the consent of the owner and at fair market price. Workers whose jobs are lost or whose paycheques shrink must be compensated. The same logic applies to communities.

We know that Canadians want to stop more of our wildlife from disappearing forever. All of us want to do that and we understand that as a result the cost of protecting those species must be shared by all of us and not just the people on whose land the endangered species happen to live.

There is an amendment in Group No. 4, made late in the day, which would suggest a bit of a compromise in terms of natives, and working with cabinet ministers and aboriginal leaders. It is a may as opposed to a shall. We are concerned about that. The cabinet opposite needs to stand and restore that wording to shall as opposed to may in this regard.

A large number of communities, such as the aboriginal groups, the first nations, the Metis, the Dene and the Inuit, have come forward with detailed, strong and impressive presentations that impacted not only with regard to representation in the legislation but also in many other ways. I know that the committee was impressed with the representation by those organizations. The feeling of betrayal that those groups have is understandable with what has transpired since the House returned in late January.

It seems to me that the changes that have been made to Bill C-5 do nothing to encourage farmers and ranchers. They do nothing for aboriginals. Frankly they do nothing for the environment and for species at risk. They do nothing for the institution of this place and for legislators. All they do perhaps is put a happy face on the cabinet's point of view. The bill as amended is a sham and not worthy of support.

[Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in this place and speak to Bill C-5 at report stage and the Group No. 4 amendments. All the speakers, including my hon. colleague from the NDP who just spoke, have an honest passion to help protect endangered species. However, as others have said, there are some real concerns about how the bill has come together and how the government brings stakeholders together because there has been no effort on behalf of the government to bring stakeholders on all sides of the fence together.

That is where the bill will fail. That is where this side of the House will have tremendous difficulty in supporting the bill. I listened to my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat who comes from a rural area. He is clearly someone who is passionate about endangered species. I know he is an avid bird watcher and that he has been known to chase cougars from time to time. He has also actually wandered with the buffalo. I know how committed he is to endangered species but there was frustration in his voice when it came to the government and the basic rights that have been violated time and time again by trying to include property rights, something that is so fundamental.

My colleague talked about the 20 year anniversary celebration of the charter. We still do not have protection of property rights. That is why we find ourselves in the situation today where farmers, ranchers and landowners are so concerned about the prospects of finding endangered species on their land and that the government may not compensate them properly or fairly and will disregard the work they have done when it comes to stewardship and other programs.

The government is not willing to guarantee any form of compensation in the type of equation the opposition has outlined in the past. The government commissioned its own researcher, Dr. Pearse, to put together a fair compensation equation in dealing with land that has to be expropriated because of the endangered species. The government has failed to even consider those recommendations that it commissioned.

Something that particularly frustrates me a great deal in this place is the way democracy works. I have been speaking about that, as many of my colleagues have in the past, with different legislation, different cases, and different issues in committees. I have been trying to see if this place can function more democratically than it currently does. We have another case of where this place has failed because of the government's lack of paying attention to what members of this House do, even outside of the House.

I look at all the amendments that were put together at the committee stage. There were so many positive amendments made on all sides of the House that pertained especially to this Group No. 4 amendments. They dealt with a national aboriginal committee, the creation of stewardship and action plans and public consultations. These were positive amendments made at the committee stage from all members of the House. These amendments were agreed to in committee. They were discussed, debated, studied and witnesses had appeared. There had been some great progress made at the committee level which would have made a lot of things that are in the bill more tolerable right now to all members of the House.

However when the bill came back to the government we see some of the changes the government made to the committee changes that were made initially to the amendments. They are just outrageous. Some of them as simple as changing a name from council to committee particularly where Motion Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 deal with the aspect of a national aboriginal committee. When that issue was debated in committee the actual name proposed for this national aboriginal committee was the national aboriginal council. The government did not want to accept that recommendation from the committee and changed it from the national aboriginal council to the national aboriginal committee.

It does not create the type of goodwill we are trying to establish in this place to bring stakeholders together. Even in the areas of stewardship and action plans, the government has made changes since the bill went through committee which are simply outrageous. It almost seems that it is trying to nitpick so that it does not have to give credit to members of the committee who worked so hard to scrutinize the bill.

It does not surprise me that there is sometimes such a disincentive in this place among members. They feel the work and the study they do to get to know a bill so they can make it better is continuously rejected. They are trying to represent the people in their ridings and Canadians generally. It begs the question as to what our role is as members of parliament in establishing proper laws and in trying to represent all Canadians by bringing people from all walks of life together? No wonder there is such frustration and breakdown of the way democracy works in this place, and this is a perfect example of it.

What I want to focus in on, and my hon. colleague from Medicine Hat touched on this, is the idea of driving a wedge between landowners and people who live in rural and urban areas, which I think that is a better way to put it. Canadians from all areas clearly have spoken in different polls and in different forms of expression about species at risk. They are generally in favour of establishing species at risk or endangered species legislation that would help protect species. I believe that in some polls as high as 92% of Canadians were in favour of such legislation.

If there is that form of consensus among Canadians who feel that protection of endangered species is important, then why is it so difficult to bring MPs, who represent all sides of the argument, together in this place? Obviously there was an opportunity for the government to bring those two groups together but it failed miserably.

My hon. colleague from Medicine Hat spoke specifically about the issue of compensation. Let us look at the people who are closest to the land and who are closest to endangered species and know the habitats of many of these species well enough that they can put measures in place to protect these species. These people are clearly ranchers, agriculture producers and landowners in rural areas. They have the knowledge and experience to protect these specifies and to it effectively.

We want to have landowners, ranchers and others on board. We want to work not only with people in the urban areas but also in some of the most crucial areas to the survival of endangered species. We have to bring all these groups together. One of the biggest areas in which this bill has failed is in the idea of compensation. For instance, if landowners potentially find habitat or endangered species on their land, it is still not clear whether that land can expropriated and whether they will be compensated for the confiscation of that land.

As my hon. colleague said, when people rely on that land through the history of generations, their livelihoods or the production for whatever it is they use the land, clearly they will react adversely if that livelihood is threatened. This is not a plea from some of these landowners, farmers or ranchers to receive handouts. Many of these people are providing viable services and businesses to their communities or the country. They only want to have that viability protected.

It is clear that, if the idea of compensation is dealt with even slightly to show that the government cares about private property rights and to show that it will never leave its rural farmers, ranchers and landowners while in the lurch in the process of trying to protect endangered species, then there would be the biggest positive response from some of these groups to help protect endangered species. Clearly that is the concern among many of them now.

This is the third time the bill has been introduced in this place in some form or another. For those who wonder why it has not had the consensus, the government has failed time and time again to bring stakeholders together and to let this place work in a fair and democratic way. Even as bills travel through this place and go through committee to be scrutinized. the government interferes in that process without respecting some of the basic recommendations of all party committees, which basically come together to build consensus.

Finally, the stakeholders have still not been brought together and that is a shame. I am happy that I could voice these concerns on behalf of Edmonton--Strathcona.

[John Duncan, Canadian Alliance, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about the amendments to Bill C-5 and bring a little different focus to the discussions. A lot of people are speaking as if the landowners primarily affected by this bill might be farmers and ranchers. We also have a big slice of the public who are cottage owners, who are involved in land development or forest woodlot ownership. There are any number of other land use activities or ownership patterns that can be impacted by this proposed legislation.

In our non-urban areas right now there are two very significant initiatives on the minds of people; that is, the species at risk act and the ratification of the Kyoto agreement. That shows the kind of priority this legislation should have.

I met with the Canadian Real Estate Association this morning. I was interested to see that it has three priority items that it wants to bring to our attention this year. The first is the national debt and the second is the limits on RRSP contributions in Canada, which are longstanding issues and are financial in nature. We would expect that from the Canadian Real Estate Association. However when it has the species at risk act and property rights in its top three issues, then we know this is a major and significant bill which has the attention of people and has them very much concerned.

They basically share the concerns of my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance. I know there are a lot of people on the Liberal side of the House who also feel the same way. It will be interesting to see where they are when it comes time to vote. They also agree that the lack of commitment in species at risk act for compensation when citizens are deprived of their property rights is a major problem. Property rights are not guaranteed under the Canadian constitution and in this bill there is no obligation to provide compensation.

The bill states that the government may provide compensation and only for losses suffered when there is extraordinary impact. Of course the bill does not define “extraordinary” which obviously makes it virtually unworkable or takes it into the domain of the courts where there will be huge costs and uncertainty inflicted on the landowner. It means that this will become an exercise in frustration.

Therefore what will happen is human nature will come into play. The bill in all likelihood will be counterproductive in most instances when it comes to private land and that is very unfortunate. Property rights are the foundation of a strong economy and a democratic society. All this is doing is diluting both of those principles.

We are on the same wavelength as the real estate association and many other organizations and institutions across the country. They believe this bill should recognize property rights when landowners are deprived of the use of their property to protect an endangered species.

My background was working 20 years as a forester. I worked for industry and was responsible for land use plans for hundreds of thousands of hectares. I have dealt with endangered species. I have dealt with any number of management plans related to habitat and good conditions for many species of wildlife in British Columbia and on coastal British Columbia.

When we look at a bill like this, I believe we need to take a practical, pragmatic and realistic approach. After all the committee work, it was headed in that direction. I have an insight from some of the people involved in that committee as to the many thousands of hours of time of the committee members and other stakeholders and how much taxpayer effort was behind the work that went into creating a report from the committee. Unfortunately all this work was blown up as soon as the government got its hands on it.

This is a huge frustration. It is symptomatic of what is wrong with this place. Many of us could and would enjoy and be enthusiastic about the work of committees. However, when we see the work of committees being blown up or ignored by the government, then one begins to wonder why we would put energy and effort into that exercise. The worst part of it is that the very people who are funding that whole exercise, the taxpayer at large, are being taken for a ride and ignored in the process.

This is a clear cut example of committee work being ignored. I have been here since 1993. I cannot think of another bill that has had more input at the committee level for a longer period of time than this one. There was a set of amendments that were very well thought out. I think there could have been all party support.

Obviously everyone wants to protect endangered species in Canada. There are some things we do not want and we can learn by looking south to the U.S. which has a very heavy-handed endangered species act. The U.S. act has led to property owners doing everything they can to ensure that they do not end up with a liability. People want to do the right thing but they do not want to make their property worthless by doing it. The government cannot go with straight disincentives.

Recently there was a case where a group wanted to influence a land use decision in its favour under the U.S. act. In order to do so, it planted fur from an endangered species on the barbed wire fence of a property owner to prove that the endangered species existed there so that the land use would be denied to the property owner.

This goes to show how far off the rails that kind of disincentive can go. The legislation is now headed in that direction, against the recommendations of the committee.

[Rob Anders, Canadian Alliance, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, for those who may be in our galleries today or who may be watching at home, I want to tell them that a girl named SARA is about to steal my land. We could have amended SARA so she would have been less of a thieving kind but, as it turns out, we have a minister who, as I have been told by people who have worked for him, has more ego than common sense.

Unfortunately, we have a scenario where even though the minister does not have the budget--I understand his own cabinet colleagues have not given him the budget to actually implement the bill or enforce it--he is bullheadedly pushing ahead with it.

Today I actually had people from my riding in Calgary travel to Ottawa, a long way from here, about 3,000 kilometres or so, to speak to me about the species at risk act, SARA, and what it would do to their properties. They were very mindful and very watchful of SARA.

These people, who represent the Calgary Real Estate Association, know about private property and understand the concerns very intimately. They asked me if I knew that if any of the 198 endangered species were found on a piece of land that the owner could lose control over his or her property.

I want people to know that if any of those 198 endangered species are found on their land they could lose all control of their private property. It is a very dangerous thing.

I think back to the very foundations of the party that sits across the way, the Liberal Party. When I think back to the turn of the century and the times of Wilfrid Laurier, that party stood for free trade and classical liberalism. It believed in private property and in property rights.

Today we see an odd scenario where that party did not enshrine private property rights in our constitution and today is passing legislation that would severely restrict our freedoms and personal liberties and would actually allow for confiscation, expropriation, regulation and interference without any form of compensation.

SARA would give the government the power to deprive landowners of the use of their property. It is very dangerous stuff. It has a lack of commitment for compensation when citizens are deprived of their property rights. There is no obligation whatsoever under the act to provide compensation and the affected landowner could face a long, costly struggle with no assurance of compensation. The sanctions basically amount to either expropriation or partial restriction.

These are not my words, even though I happen to like them a great deal. These are the words of the people who are involved with the Calgary Real Estate Association. These people know property. They came all the way from Calgary today just to speak to me with regard to this particular issue.

A lot of people are very upset with SARA. They are worried about what she just might do.

I will go through what I consider to be important questions that the government or anyone should always ask with regard to legislation.

First, will the legislation actually solve the problem? Let us say the problem has to do with endangered species. If we were to actually put forward legislation that did not offer compensation to farmers, ranchers and others with a direct vested interest in these things, then we would wind up with legislation such as they have in the United States where people choose to go ahead and liquidate. I think the United States describes it as shoot, shovel and shut up. People would actually go ahead and get rid of endangered species on their land out of fear that it would somehow restrict their ability to use the land.

The legislation would actually make the problem worse. It singles out these endangered species for landowners to go ahead and get rid of them as nuisances.

Second, what fruit will it bear? This is an important question we should always ask when putting forward legislation. If the fruit it bears means that it actually impinges on the endangered species, results in restriction of personal freedoms in the use of private property, increases transaction costs and all these nasty things, then what fruit does it bear? I would say that it bears bad fruit. As a result, why would we pass something that bears bad fruit? Why would we put time, effort, blood, sweat, tears and political equity into it?

Third, who wants it? Do I hear a cry, a cacophony from the veterinarians across the land saying that they want to see this legislation? No.

Do I hear ranchers who deal with huge amounts of beasts on a regular basis and who have an obvious vested interest in stewardship of the land crying out to see this legislation? No.

Who do I hear crying out? I hear some city dwellers who do not actually live among many animals but who are particular fans of given cabinet ministers who are emotionally attached to this idea. However, I believe that if they are in favour of this, and I know many of them actually are not, they have wrongly placed their faith in the legislation because without fair compensation the legislation would do far more harm than good. In terms of the nitty-gritty of the legislation, I do not see all those people who want it.

Fourth, is it based on an exotic case? Is the government bringing forward the legislation based on a small incidence of success? As I have said in one of my previous speeches, out of all the species in the United States that have been listed as endangered species and animals, which are supposed to be protected with this type of Canadian legislation that has been modelled after the legislation in the United States, it was effective in only three-tenths of I think 1%. That basically means that the legislation was approximately 99% ineffective. It actually missed by such broad strokes that when one considers the amount of money that could be involved with this, the cost makes no sense.

Fifth, how much will the bill cost? Here it is doubly insidious because it is not only a question of how much money it will cost the Canadian economy as a whole but it is also a question of who pays for it that is very dangerous. Even though it is government legislation that is depriving people of the use and enjoyment of their private property, of their land, actually it is not the government that pays for it because the cabinet colleagues of our ego driven cabinet minister in this case have not provided any money for it. As a result, who will be responsible? It will come off the backs of the Canadian taxpayers. It will come off the property owners. It will be an attack on property owners.

It is funny when we think of the Senate having been set up as a body of sober second thought in a sense to guarantee private property rights. What a twisted fate this is.

The sixth and final question, what or who will slip through the cracks? The legislation would allow the very group that it says it is out to defend, the animals, the endangered species, to be the ones who slip through the cracks. It sets up an incentive structure for the farmers, the ranchers, those who own those large lots of property, to actually get rid of endangered species. The legislation does endangered species more harm than good. They would be better off without the legislation.

Let us quickly go over to economics because I have touched on some moral and ethical questions that one always needs to take into account with legislation. In economics, for prosperity we require a recognition of private property rights. It is one of the fundamentals. It is kind of a Jeffersonian classical liberal idea. When he wanted to write the constitution he wanted to have private property rights rather than the pursuit of happiness because he believed in it so strongly. However this legislation is directly contrary to that fundamental understanding of economics and actually attacks private property rights. Rather than reducing costs it increases transaction costs for those who own the land because of all the regulations involved.

The legislation bears bad fruit. It does not accomplish what it was supposed to do. If enacted it will be incredibly costly, and even cabinet colleagues across the way do not support the minister on it. I ask the government members to show courage and vote against it.

[Grant Hill, Canadian Alliance, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is my opportunity to speak to the amendments in Group No. 4 relating to species at risk, Bill C-5.

I will begin my discussion on the overall and broad effect the species at risk legislation would have on society, which is the reason we are debating the legislation. There is an advantage to society to protect species that are at risk.

I was recently at a talk on science which was dedicated to the effect pollution has on organisms downwind of big metropolitan cities, in particular Toronto. A scientist who is quite well known for his work in this area talked about how the plant and animal species downwind of the major cities were in fact different from those in areas upwind.

He studied lichens and their growth and showed how the effects of pollution were negative on that plant species. He did not speak a lot on animal species, which is where we are at today with the legislation, but the same effects have been shown to be true and present.

It shows the effects of human activity on other animal species. I tried to look back to see where we have been successful in our efforts toward species at risk. The one area where we have been successful is with the whooping crane. That was a widely publicized issue in which Canadians should take some pride. We have had some success in tracking and raising these birds in a tame environment and then releasing them in the wild.

Would Bill C-5, and particularly the amendments that we are talking about today, give us success in that regard? The two areas that are very particular to these amendments are areas that relate to letting the landowners know whether or not they have species at risk on their properties.

We have tried to put forward amendments to the legislation that would allow the landowner to be made aware of the presence of species on their properties that are at risk .

The arguments that have been used against that are I suppose valid. The public could possibly become interested in the land, tromp on it and possibly endanger the species in question. I am of the mind that telling the landowner is an advantage. If the landowner were aware he would be capable of taking preventive steps against harming the habit for that species. That is one specific area where I am not certain the argument is one I accept.

The second area would be consultation. There is a great desire to consult on issues of this kind. Those who have a vested interest of course are the ones the government has the closest access to. People who are animal activists would be very interested in this issue and would likely be available for consultation and available to the committee as it travels. I am not certain that all components of society are as actively sought by us when we look at legislation of this nature. For instance, the indigenous groups in the country certainly have an interest in and a record of being interested in species and the overall environment. I am not certain if we have seen any amendments in these two specific areas that would make the legislation more appropriate.

I will talk about more broad issues as well. In my view, and some of my colleagues have expressed this plainly, the best way to preserve species at risk is a co-operative mechanism. In other words, the stewards of the land are enlisted in this co-operative effort. In the preamble to the legislation we see these thoughts reflected. A co-operative approach is much better than a forceful approach. I looked to see whether that was carried through in the way the legislation would actually be enacted and I am not certain that the stewards of the land are well enlisted in this approach.

I would ask the philosophical question, is this for the good of society? I happen to believe it is for society's good to try to protect species and maintain biodiversity. I also believe that if it is for the societal good, the cost should be borne by society as a whole, not by individuals suddenly singled out by the presence of a species at risk or by an accident of nature there is a species at risk near their dwelling, their place of work or their place of commerce.

What pitfalls do I see if we do not go down that road? The one pitfall of course is that if we punish the steward of the land, we end up with the triple s approach to preservation. That has been very evident in other jurisdictions.

I represent a large ranching part of Alberta. An individual gave me an example of what had happened in his particular case. The grizzly is a species that by some estimates should be very heavily protected. In his part of the world over the last few years the grizzly bear has become a problem for some of the cattle. One of his neighbours went down the route of exterminating a grizzly because if it was found on his property, the access of his cattle to the range would be shut down. That is an example that is very harmful to the overall concept of being a steward of both the land and the species.

Farmers and ranchers often are very vocal and close to the issues of species at risk and property rights, but it is interesting that the Canadian Real Estate Association is currently lobbying, in the good sense of that word, here on the Hill. One of its big issues, one of three issues that was brought to parliament, was the very issue I am speaking of, property rights in relation to species at risk. Most of us know a realtor. I was intrigued by the fact that realtors would take this issue to parliament and say they have discomfort with the approach in Bill C-5, an approach which basically says that the government may provide compensation and only for losses where there is an extraordinary impact. There is no obligation, in other words, to provide compensation under the species at risk act. If there is one thing the government could do and should do to change the tenor of debate on this major issue, it would be to provide compensation.

The example that was given to me by the realtor who came to see me was one which I think should affect most homeowners in Canada if in fact their property, a city lot, not a country lot or some pristine beautiful piece of property, were designated to have a species at risk on it. Individuals could lose the ability to have barbecues behind their homes. They might even lose the opportunity to put a fence around their property for the standard reasons people fence in their property, for example to keep their tots in hand.

The point was broadened out to talk about land development. Land developers look for the opportunity to give economic advantages to Canada. They look at areas to put in developments, factories, condominiums, homes in the broadest sense. Those developers, having purchased property and finding a species at risk on it, and possibly the government having known about this and not having let them know, could lose their whole livelihood and have the property taken from them

I conclude my comments by saying that species at risk are important. They are important for society as a whole, as a good for society. I believe that society should pay for that good and not have the issue of compensation for land left with such vague phrases. “May compensate for extraordinary impact” is not good enough. “Must compensate” is much more appropriate.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, more government, more regulation, more intrusion into our day to day lives, a heavy-handed approach to basic fundamental rights: this is increasingly becoming the agenda of the government. This legislation is representative of that approach.

I think every member of the House supports the intended goal of the legislation to protect endangered species. That is not the problem. The difficulty here is that there is a whole host of stakeholders who are opposed to this legislation. When we analyze that, the root cause of that opposition is lack of consultation. The government and the bureaucracy have an approach to mandate and legislate results without consultation or co-operation. There is a tremendous amount of opposition to this piece of legislation.

I am from Saskatchewan. This legislation, along with other intrusive pieces of legislation from the government, will have a negative impact on rural Saskatchewan and I suppose other parts of the country as well. What are some of these concerns?

I mentioned that it is running roughshod over fundamental rights. Property rights are the heart and soul or our economic system. The free enterprise system could not work without our concept of property. It would totally break down.

The other day we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the charter of rights. When the Liberal government created the charter of rights, it deliberately chose to ignore the inclusion of property rights in our constitution as a basic protection. I can see why the Liberals did not want that in the charter of rights. It is this type of legislation we are looking at today that underscores their contempt for the concept of property rights.

In a modern democracy, all we can expect is that if the government needs property, at least we will have due process in expropriation proceedings and we will receive fair compensation. The government refused to guarantee those basic rights in this legislation. That is dangerous.

As far as interfering with basic rights is concerned, a second danger point is criminal justice principles. In many ways a hallmark of a western democracy is how we treat the accused in our society. One of the principles of our criminal justice system that is pretty strong and basic is that we do not make criminals out of citizens who did not have mens rea, the intent to commit the crime.

This legislation has serious consequences for someone who innocently might cause damage to habitat or an endangered species. No matter how innocent, he or she could face five years in jail and $250,000 in fines. In my province many of the farmers are corporate farmers. They have been required to incorporate to deal with taxation issues and other matters. The sanctions are even heavier for a corporate entity, some $1 million in fines.

We are observing the decline of rural Canada. In a lot of ways, if the government is not the cause of the decline, it has helped to accelerate it. I had the privilege of driving through North Dakota not long ago. There are five pasta processing plants in that state near the Canadian border. A few years back a group of entrepreneurial farmers in the prairies wanted to develop their own pasta plant. The Canadian Wheat Board regulations would not permit them to do so. Their project was aborted because of government regulation.

In rural Saskatchewan today, any sort of minor roadwork, ditch digging, putting in culverts, removing an old bridge or anything along those lines now requires environmental impact studies due to the legislation of the government.

The government's rail transportation policies have been a disaster for rural Saskatchewan. They have been a disaster for our small towns and our rural highway network which is falling apart.

The government's income support programs have been a disaster as well. When I talk to farm people back in my province I am told these programs are lean on results and very heavy on bureaucracy and complication.

There have now been a few more things added to this legislation including cruelty to animals amendments which are going to have a huge negative impact on rural Canada.

We have already debated the firearms legislation many times in the House. It sends out dangerous and hostile signals to people in rural Canada.

The government should be looking at policies that encourage growth in rural Canada instead of coming up with policies that accelerate the decline of rural Canada, some of which I just mentioned. There are many more. The government is perceived in my part of rural Canada as a hostile, alien entity. Its agenda is not compatible with the interests of rural Canada.

Emerson and Thoreau did not like city life. They preferred instead to get close to nature, to get out to the forest and away from the craziness of urban life in the United States. I have spent a good deal of my life in rural Saskatchewan. After spending a lot of time in an urban area it is very refreshing to get back into a rural area close to nature.

People who live in rural Canada are much more sensitive than their urban cousins are about the environment and endangered species. They have much better knowledge of that as well. Quite often the government gets its inspiration from urban society. It may have good intentions, but as Shakespeare and others have said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The government should be listening to rural Canadians when bringing in policies of this nature.

It gets a bit scary to hear the words “the government should do something about that” because every time the government takes on a task, its cure is quite literally worse than the problem. It has a bad habit of doing that sort of thing. The government wants to regulate and control our day to day lives. It wants to respond to every request from a group in our society for the government to do something. In response it comes up with more bureaucracy, legislation or something that interferes with our basic fundamental rights.

There has to be a refocus because the country is in decline. When I came back from the United States in 1969 our dollar was almost on par with the United States dollar. Our standard of living and our tax rates were equivalent to those of the United States. Today our standard of living is 30% lower than that of the United States. I do not know what the dollar is today, but yesterday it was still in the 62¢ range. Canada is slowly headed in the wrong direction.

We need a government that creates an environment that challenges people to aim for the gold medal, not the bronze medal. With this government we are dealing with a lead medal. We are not even aiming at third place any more.

We do not need more government interference in our day to day lives. We need some positive signals from the government that encourage growth and give people hope for the future. This legislation is just one of many pieces of legislation which send out the wrong signal.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the legislation once again.

I do not know how many Canadians know it, but this is the third time this bill or a similar bill has been before the House of Commons. The first two times it was killed by the opposition and people across the country who realized it was bad legislation. The bill now before the House is fundamentally the same bad legislation that was rejected across the country twice before. Why is it before the House again?

For an answer we can look at the Challenger executive jets. The arrogance of the Prime Minister and the government has allowed it to purchase executive jets for $100 million when the military has 40 year old Sea King helicopters. We all know military helicopters get a lot rougher use than Challenger jets. This kind of arrogance--

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure all people listening are anxious to hear my hon. colleague get to the content of the Group No. 4 amendments to the species at risk bill before the House.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

He was.

[An hon. member]

That is not a point of debate, Madam Speaker.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Yes, it is a point of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lakeland.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker it is unbelievable. It demonstrates the level of arrogance of the government.

I said when I started my presentation that I would--

[Some hon members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Order please.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Lakeland.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the heckling is getting a little heavy over there. I guess some ministers have come to the realization that this is bad legislation and they do not want to hear about it. That is pretty clear. The fact that government members are not allowed to speak to the bill demonstrates that the government does not want to hear opposition to the legislation which has been shot down twice before.

In my opening comments I connected this group of amendments to the Challenger jet purchase. I will continue to do so because it has to do with arrogance. It is arrogance that prompts the Prime Minister and other ministers in the cabinet to buy executive jets when our military is short of equipment of all types and does not have enough people to do the job it has taken on and will continue to take on.

The same arrogance allows the government to prevent its own members from speaking to Bill C-5. Lots of them want to speak to the legislation. Many Liberal members in the House do not support it. They recognize that it is bad legislation. Arrogance is so ingrained in the government that it has become a huge problem.

I heard the Liberal vice chair of the environment committee on CBC radio a couple of weeks ago on the show The House . She talked about what had gone on at committee. She talked about some of the amendments in Group No. 4 and how they had been changed. I did not entirely like the product the committee came up with but it did its work. It was good work by and large. What the committee came up with was much better than what the government has put forward. The vice chair of the committee said on national radio that she was upset and disgusted with her own government because it had ignored months of hard work by the committee. The government completely ignored the work of all members of the committee. It threw it aside and put in place what the minister and cabinet wanted.

That is a problem of arrogance. The government no longer cares what the public wants. It thinks it can go on indefinitely without having to worry about the public. That is the sad truth. It is the level the Liberal government has come to.

I can understand why the minister and hon. members opposite want to shut me down through heckling. They do not want to hear this stuff. However it is a fact. Not only opposition members are saying this. Government members are saying it.

People across the country who expect their MPs to speak on their behalf must be wondering where the speakers are from the governing party. They are not here today. They have not been here for the past few days. They will not be here over the next few days--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I think the hon. member has been here long enough to know we cannot mention the absence or presence of members. I remind the hon. member that I have given him a lot of leeway, five minutes, and there is the question of relevance in terms of what we are discussing which is Group No. 4.

[Leon Benoit, Canadian Alliance, Lakeland, AB]

Madam Speaker, I had referred to Group No. 4 and was making comparisons. There is no doubt that my remarks were relevant. As far as mentioning who is in the House, I did not refer to who was or was not in the House. I did not say government members were not in the House today. I said government members had not been speaking to the legislation. I am sorry if the way I expressed it was not clear.

Government members have not been speaking to the legislation. Why have they not been speaking to it? It is because the government has told them they are not allowed to. The whip has come down heavily and told them they are not allowed to speak to Bill C-5. That is not the way a democracy works. What we have had in Canada for some time is not a functioning democracy.

What we have seen with the Group No. 4 amendments is a clear example of this. The committee worked on the Group No. 4 amendments regarding stewardship action plans. The all party committee dominated by the government presented its work in a report. What did the government do with the report? It chose to throw it aside and put in place what the environment minister and members of the cabinet wanted. That is exactly what it did. That is the way the government operates now. It simply threw it aside.

We know the abuse is extreme when the Liberal vice-chair of the committee goes on the radio to say she is disgusted with what her own government has done with the committee's work. She went on CBC radio two weeks ago. She said the committee had done good work on the issue, work which included the Group No. 4 amendments. She said the committee put forth its work and the government said to heck with it, the work means nothing so we will put in place what we want. The government's arrogance has reached a point where the Liberal vice-chair of the committee has made an issue of it. It is a clear problem but it did not develop recently. It is not new but it is expanding and has become worse. It is leading to bad legislation.

The Group No. 4 amendments we are talking about today demonstrate the point. The legislation and amendments now before the House and the country at report stage are not those brought forward by the committee. They were brought forward by the government to override the amendments of the committee. That is completely unacceptable.

As a result Bill C-5 has no clause for fair compensation for landowners or land users who have endangered species on their land. Because the legislation does not have a clause for fair compensation it will completely fail. Rather than protect endangered species, something we all support, Bill C-5 would further jeopardize them. Because it would adopt a mandatory rather than a voluntary approach it will fail. I look forward to commenting on further amendments as well.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I am sure most members do not sleep with Marleau and Montpetit at their bedside as I do, but before we resume debate I will read from a section on page 533 dealing with report stage:

The Speaker can also control debate through the use of the relevance rule as applied to debate on clauses of a bill.

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House and again take part in the debate on Bill C-5. The bill has been introduced three times in three different parliaments. It was first introduced two parliaments ago.

I have gone through some of the notes written at the time. We talk about the relevance of Bill C-5. It encountered the same problems when it failed the first time. It encountered them again when it failed in the 36th parliament. It is encountering them yet again. I cannot understand why the same government is in power. It has had three kicks at the can with the bill. There are still 139 amendments coming forward. Today we are dealing with Group No. 4. How can the government get it so wrong three times in a row? It boggles my mind.

This species at risk legislation would put at risk not only animals, plants, spiders and all those creepy crawly things but farmers, ranchers, oil patch workers, miners, woodlot owners and all the people who work the land in an environmentally sound way. There is already legislation in place. With Bill C-5 the biggest species at risk would be the taxpayer, the ordinary Canadian doing his darndest to make a living and keep the bank and the tax man off his back. Legislation like this would add to the regulatory burden and take the wind out of people's sails who are trying to be entrepreneurial and move ahead. I cannot understand it.

Bill C-5 would expand ministerial discretion. It creates a shudder effect through most of Canadian society when people see bills like Bill C-68, the obnoxious firearms bill. I thank the Liberal government for giving me more cannon fodder to use in the next election. The government is assuring my re-election with this legislation.

At the end of the day Bill C-5 would not serve the community. It would not serve the interests of Canadian taxpayers or the species they are trying to support.

There are three ministers in control of the issue: the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Canadians have concerns about these ministers when it comes to preserving their discretionary power.

Under Bill C-5 the minister alone would decide whether compensation was given and how much it would be. The government has budgeted $45 million to implement the legislation. Bill C-68 was budgeted at $85 million. Can members guess where it is now? The numbers we have obtained through access to information requests indicate it is 10 times that amount.

Bill C-5 would be another huge waste of taxpayer money. It would be another boondoggle to add to the notches in the government's bedpost. It flies in the face of everything a democracy stands for. There would be a total lack of transparency in reporting. Ministerial reports including listing decisions would be deleted. There would be no requirement for them. The minister could make changes arbitrarily. We have seen it done under other legislation. The government will keep doing it because it has the power. We can only shake our heads.

When will the Canadian people get the idea that these guys are not an effective government? Bill C-5 has no sunset clause. There is no mandatory review period, something that should be standard for any new legislation like this. We should be able to ask whether it is working. Whether it entails a three year or five year period, something must be put in legislation to indicate whether it is on the right track. The government is definitely not on the right track.

Under Bill C-5 politics rather than science would decide what was in danger. Every Canadian wants species to be protected but the legislation offers no effective means of doing that. That is why there are 139 amendments even though the government has had three kicks at it. Nothing has changed.

As I have said, a budget of $45 million is inadequate when we consider the different types of compensation. When we in the Alliance talk about compensation we mean market value compensation. The committee came up with the same recommendations. The all party committee made up of backbench Liberals and five parties from this side of the House came up with great recommendations. However the minister and a few of his henchmen on the front bench, probably the same three I named, said they would not do it the committee's way because they had a better idea. Their idea might give them more power, clout and budget money but it will not at the end of the day protect any species, especially the poor Canadian taxpayer.

I have talking points from the first time the bill was introduced. The main message was what Canadians wanted. These were polls that the Liberals did at that time. What did Canadians want when it came to protecting species at risk? First, a plan based on concern for the environment. All Canadians wanted a healthy environment and to protect biodiversity.

Second, a plan based on caring for species at risk. We can legislate it but that does not mean it will happen. If we have a plant variety, and we have lots of those in the west on range land and so on, and we trample over three miles of other plant life to go in and protect that one, what have we gained at the end of the day? I am not sure this will even work.

We have seen the American model fall apart. The Americans had the sense to back up and take another stab at it and go with incentives, allowing ranchers, farmers, woodlot owners, and miners to come up with plans that were proactive, not reactive and wrong-headed like Bill C-5.

The big thing that Canadians want to see is common sense in the bill. To protect species at risk we must have common sense to consider the needs of everybody involved. We must have a balanced plan, one that accommodates, changes, and is flexible. We should go back to some sort of sunset clause or a review. Are we getting the most bang for our buck?

The bottom line is we must have respect for the landowners. Whether it is someone's front lawn in the city, someone's back 40 out west or on the east coast in an apple orchard, we must have respect for that landowner. We must have a proactive approach, certainly, to protect species but we must base it on respect for that landowner, the guy who is trying to make a living from that land. If we take away the ability to farm or work the land how will he pay taxes? We are coming into that situation as well.

The committee laid out a proposal for timelines, action plans to be completed and so on. Those have all been brushed aside. We see the heavy foot of the ministers coming down saying that they do not want any of this red tape tying them down. That is unfortunate. That is what they are doing to the rest of the country.

No one on this side of the House or on that side of the House wants to see any endangered species at risk. We really do not. That is just good common sense. That is the end result of the bill. However I cannot see us getting there when we are trying to get from A to D without doing steps B and C. Compensation and good sound science are the B and C in that equation. They are not in the bill.

I do not know what kind of a bomb it will take to get these guys off of that type of logic. They will make us criminals before we have a chance to defend ourselves or explain what our role is and how that burrowing owl got there. It just happened overnight. It was not there last week when the farmer plowed it and that type of thing.

There are a lot more questions than answers starting to come forward in the bill. The longer it takes and the more debate that is going on, a lot of these questions are coming out, but the silence on the other side is deafening. We are not hearing any answers.

Probably the best thing the Liberals can do is hoist the bill again. Maybe the fourth time will be a charm. Let us take it back to committee and let these guys honour what the committee has done this time around and not put the hobnail boot on it. We need co-operation, not confrontation with the provinces. Habitat is all provincial and we are coming down hard on them with everything that is in the bill. We are totally cutting them out.

I talked to the provincial ministers in Saskatchewan and Alberta and they are afraid of this. They really are. They have some major concerns and they are relying on us to bring their concerns forward. We are happy to do that. I know this debate will continue and I look forward to that.

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

Madam Speaker, it gives me pleasure to speak again to Bill C-5 which is simply a bad bill.

One would think that after the experience the United States has had with its legislation, which in the beginning was similar to what we are looking at today, we would learn there are better ways of doing it. A lot of people have analyzed this particular bill to be worse than what the United States came out with 25 years ago. It just did not work.

In Group No. 4 we have a number of amendments that would help address that by getting people to co-operate with one another in order to protect the endangered species as needed. That is what the Americans are moving toward. It is beginning to work and having an effect.

Instead of bringing the hard hammer of government regulation, government rule and law, down on the backs of the taxpayers, we should look at how we can make it work collectively. That would be the cheap way of doing it. I guarantee we would not have a lot of court cases as is the case in the United States. This bill would certainly bring a lot of those about.

A big problem with that is if someone is charged. We have a backward law where one has to prove one is innocent. The onus of proof is the reverse. We always assume that one is innocent until proven guilty. Not in this case. One is guilty and it is up to the landowner or a property owner or whatever the case might be to prove that one is innocent, that one is doing what is required by this law to protect endangered species. That is not democratic. The way this is set up it is not even according to the code of our judicial system.

There are people in this country who still do not realize that when the constitution was brought in by Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the early 1980s the government totally and intentionally left property rights completely out of the picture. Because property rights do not exist in the constitution of this land, which is a disgrace, every one of these amendments attempts to fill that gap, that void.

It is because the constitution in the United States does have property rights that the endangered species act that it tried to pass 25 years ago finally is having a turn. The United States recognizes that it is important that it not only protect endangered species but it also protects the rights of the landowners and property owners in that country.

We will not do that here because we do not have any such rights to protect. It does not exist. I would like to know why the most obvious right would be left out of the constitution. I would not dare suggest as to why the government would do that. It would probably be declared unparliamentary language and I would have to apologize.

Any apologies that need to be made should be made to all the people that the government is trying to impose this kind of law on. People must recognize that they have to prove they are innocent rather than be proven they are guilty. People must recognize that if the government needs their land in order to protect endangered species it will go in and take it. It has the right to do it, with no compensation, because there is nothing to protect property rights.

Even the common sense Liberals who served on the parliamentary committee began to realize there was something wrong with this big picture. They made the best possible effort as committee members, along with others, to bring to the attention to members in their own party that the bill really needed work. Suggestions came from the committee after all its hard work. In the usual dictatorial manner the minister said that what comes in the front door would go out the back door and ignored everything suggested or brought forward.

Most of those suggestions came from the public after having met with the committee. It brought to the committee's attention some serious flaws in the bill. The Liberal backbenchers who served on the committee as well as the opposition recognized these problems. They were willing to bring them forward to the minister who in his usual dictatorial manner ignored the whole thing.

We stand here today in opposition to the bill because of these flaws. Speeches have been made by one opposition member after another, with no speeches coming from the Liberal side because its members know it is a bad law and they cannot possibly stand up and defend the legislation. I do not blame them. I too would remain seated and keep quiet.

Anyone on that side of the House who represents a rural riding which contains endangered species would know that the amendments in Group No. 4 are essential to make the legislation viable.

We get a lot of letters from lobby groups and different people who encourage us to support the bill. They say we must support it. One particular person who came to see me asked whether I would support the bill. I said I could not in its present form. After further conversations with people I understand now that they do not really know what this is all about. Communication regarding the bill is really lacking. People do not understand the situation.

I asked one constituent whether I could give a test. I asked about the burrowing owl and what we must do to protect it. I would like to ask some of the members in the House today what we must do to protect the burrowing owl. I am sure they do not know. I do not think they know. This particular constituent told me that we would have to fence off the area, let the grass grow and leave the species alone to enjoy its habitat.

What people do not understand is that burrowing owls will not live long in growing grass. They require the grass to be maintained. They pop their little heads out of their holes and must be able to see over the grass to spot their prey so they can eat. That is how it is done. It is not done through legislation such as this.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

How did they survive 200 years ago, Myron?

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

I hear a goat.