Debates of April 16th, 2002

Privilege

[Carol Skelton, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to a notice sent out yesterday by the Standing Committee on Health. The notice misrepresented the role of the House in a way that seriously maligns parliament.

The notice sent out by the health committee indicated that its business for the day was Bill C-53. Bill C-53 was up for debate yesterday and had not yet passed second reading when the notice was sent. The committee chairman had presupposed that the House would pass Bill C-53. While that ended up being the outcome, the committee notice to study Bill C-53 should not have been sent out until the House had made the decision to refer the bill to committee.

I refer the House to a ruling from October 10, 1989. Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on a similar matter regarding an advertisement put out by parliament before parliament approved it. The Speaker quoted the then member for Windsor West, the recent Deputy Prime Minister, as saying:

--when this advertisement...says in effect there will be a new tax on January 1...the advertisement is intended to convey the idea that Parliament has acted on it because that is, I am sure, the ordinary understanding of Canadians about how a tax like this is finally adopted and comes into effect. That being the case, it is clearly contempt of Parliament because it amounts to a misrepresentation of the role of this House--.

The Speaker's comment in 1989 ruled that the effect of presupposing a decision of the House may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.

We can draw a parallel between the 1989 case and the recent notice sent out by the health committee. If the committee gives the impression that Bill C-53 received second reading before the vote took place at second reading then its notice conveys the idea, as the former member for Windsor West argued, that the House adopted Bill C-53 at second reading since that would be Canadians' normal understanding of the process. The former Deputy Prime Minister argued that this sort of mockery of the parliamentary system amounts to contempt of parliament.

While the Speaker in 1989 did not rule a prima facie question of privilege he did say:

--I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous.

Mr. Speaker Fraser was in a quandary. He was not sure on which side he should rule so he gave a warning. He warned that next time he would rule on the side of granting a prima facie question of privilege.

This sort of thing has happened many times since those words were spoken. In the last two parliaments the Speaker had a tendency to look the other way. He did so when the Minister for International Trade sent out a press release announcing the establishment of a Canada-China interparliamentary group when no such group existed. He did so when the government announced the appointment of the head of the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation before there was legislation to set up the foundation.

A matter was raised by hon. member for Prince George--Peace River regarding the Canadian Wheat Board on February 3, 1998. Another matter was raised on October 28, 1997 regarding the Department of Finance. These complaints headed other warnings.

On November 6, 1997 the Speaker said:

--the Chair acknowledges that this is a matter of potential importance since it touches the role of members as legislators, a role which should not be trivialized. It is from this perspective that the actions of the Department...are of some concern...This dismissive view of the legislative process, repeated often enough, makes a mockery of our parliamentary conventions and practices...I trust that today's decision at this early stage of the 36th Parliament will not be forgotten by the minister and his officials and that the departments and agencies will be guided by it.

These are strong words but such words cannot always be effective in defending the authority of this House. The fact that this behaviour continues undeterred demonstrates that the House must get serious.

Thankfully in this parliament the Speaker has taken these matters seriously. I will comment on two of those cases because they help to establish a pattern involving a particular minister.

Bill C-53 is sponsored by the same minister who was charged with contempt for leaking the contents of Bill C-15 before it was tabled in the House. When the Minister of Health was minister of justice, she was at it again with Bill C-36. Bill C-53 represents the minister's third offence, the latest tragedy to be preformed from her trilogy of contempt.

If the House is to function with authority and dignity then it must be respected, especially by its own members.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule this matter to be a prima facie question of privilege at which time I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[The Speaker]

I think I can deal with the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon--Rosetown--Biggar.

I have in hand the notice for the meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health for Tuesday, April 16, today.

The notice was published before second reading of the bill in the House.

I think I have to differentiate between the cases that the hon. member has cited in her no doubt able argument. Those referred to advertisements published by the executive, that is by the cabinet or by a minister, concerning the activities of the minister that would follow passage of a bill in this House.

This particular notice is a House publication. It was done no doubt by a zealous committee chair or committee clerk in the Standing Committee on Health who was aware that this bill was coming forward and who decided he or she may as well get ready to publish the notice that there would be a meeting on the bill. There is no doubt in my mind that had the bill not been passed at second reading the meeting would have been cancelled and we would have heard about it.

The fact is that the publication was an internal document published by parliament for use in parliament. It was not published by the minister. It was published by the House. Obviously it was done prematurely. Perhaps someone was a bit overzealous in anticipating the passage of this legislation but I suspect the enthusiasm by the members of the committee to get at the study of the bill brought them to a point where the clerk or the chairman of the committee felt they had better get on with it because everyone wanted to get at it with such haste and, accordingly, the notice was published.

It is hard to find that there has been a breach of the privileges of the House when the House itself published the document. Accordingly, I am afraid I do not find there is a question of privilege in this case.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is on the same topic. Your ruling has just opened this up.

The committee that I attended most of the time, the finance committee, used to have no restrictions on motions. Since the government took control of that committee a motion has been brought in that requires 48 hours notice of meetings. As a result, in the finance committee as well notices of meetings have been given two days prior to an anticipated meeting, which subsequently then, as you suggested, had to be cancelled.

I have the following question for you, Mr. Speaker. Is your guidance necessary for this committee? How do we as members of parliament and members of the committee demand that no motions be put in committee without having had 48 hours notice on those motions?

We have found that government members selectively move motions and uphold the ruling of the chair even though notice has not been given when it is to their liking but when it is not to their liking they uphold the rules rigorously, and there is nothing we can do about it. I ask for your guidance.

[The Speaker]

Tempting as it is for the Chair to answer questions in the House, I think the hon. member knows that it is not for me to stand here and answer questions from hon. members, much as I might like to give answers.

I would suggest that the hon. member, at his committee, approach the clerk of the committee who will be full of information on this subject. Alternatively, he could read Marleau and Montpetit, which is a fountain of information on this kind of subject as well. Having read those and consulted with the clerk of the committee I am sure he will have an answer that, while he may not be totally satisfied with it, will at least be an answer to his question.

As much as I would like to help him, I think I will refrain from doing so at this particular time.

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division government orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, as reported with amendments from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 4.

Species at Risk Act

[Maurice Vellacott, Canadian Alliance, Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as we resume the debate on Bill C-5, I want to clarify where the Canadian Alliance stands with respect to the species at risk act.

The Canadian Alliance is perfectly committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species, let there be no mistake on that, but we do have some major concerns with Bill C-5, as I will lay out and as have other members very capably laid out over the course of this day.

Alliance members do not believe that Bill C-5 would work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Many of us who have spoken in recent days have farmers and ranchers in our constituencies. Those individuals want to protect endangered species but they should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihoods, and therein comes the rub.

We have insisted all along that criminal liability must require intent. The act in this case would make criminals out of good people who may inadvertently and unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitats. This is unnecessarily very confrontational and makes endangered species a threat to property owners. We need a co-operative approach, not the confrontation that seems to be a part of Bill C-5. We need co-operation with the provinces.

The 1996 national accord for the protection of species at risk was a step in the right direction. It needs to be developed co-operatively. Instead Bill C-5 would give the federal government the power to impose its laws on provincial lands. Since it is left completely at the minister's discretion, landowners do not know if and when the shoe would drop. Instead of working with the provinces and property owners, the federal government seems to be introducing and producing an uncertainty and a climate of resentment and distrust as well.

It appears that the government wants to amend only along certain lines. In effect it is reversing many of the positions taken by its own members of parliament on the environment committee. Unfortunately that is another example of some of the top down control by bureaucrats who wanted to go a particular way on this bill. It also shows a real contempt or disregard for government members across the way and members in the opposition benches here.

The government really has no idea what the costs and the socioeconomic implications of the legislation would be over time. In the minister's information supplement of October 2001, the Minister of the Environment said:

Environment Canada is aware that compensation for restrictions on the use of land is a complex issue that requires careful consideration and innovative thinking. We will need several years of practical experience in implementing the stewardship and recovery provisions of the Species at Risk Act (SARA) before we can be precise in prescribing eligibility and thresholds for compensation.

In speaking to the standing committee on October 3, 2001, the minister explained why he could not guarantee compensation in Bill C-5. He said:

We then got deeper and deeper into this and it became more and more of the proverbial swamp, and more and more difficult to do partly because, of course, governments should not pass legislation which is open-ended in terms of funding. We have fiscal responsibilities which, as you can well imagine, are fairly strict on us. Forty-five million a year is what we're given to run the process and that's what we can expect and that's it.

Any fair-minded person, in hearing that kind of a statement, and those hearing it today, would understand that to be a red flag. Is it not essential that the costs on industry, on property users and the cost on government in terms of enforcement resources be known by the government before it introduces legislation with such far reaching implications?

In particular, we want to know and have a little more close approximation of what the bill would cost farmers, loggers, fishermen, ranchers and so on. We want to know what the government's compensation costs would be as well. Without that information, individuals cannot plan and government does not know what costs are being passed on.

The Canadian Alliance proposed a motion in a previous group, Motion No. 15, which read:

The purposes of this Act, outlined in subsection (1), shall be pursued and accomplished in a manner consistent with the goals of sustainable development.

That is very important. It is closely related to socioeconomic interests because it requires that a balance be struck between the environmental goals and the needs of the taxpayer. Without considering this important aspect of sustainable development, environmental laws could quickly kill the goose that lays the golden egg, so to speak.

Worrying about endangered species is only something that prosperous economies can afford to do because someone must pay for it. Economic desperation will be no friend to species at risk so we must put that forward.

The species at risk working group was made up of representatives from a broad range of environmental and industry groups, among them the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and the Mining Association of Canada. When they appeared before the House standing committee in September 2000 they said the purpose of the act should be pursued to the extent possible while taking into account the social and economic interests of Canadians. That is a reasonable amendment that should be accepted by the House.

We put forward another motion which would require socioeconomic interests to be considered in the legal listing of species. The bill would already provide that it be considered in developing recovery measures.

Another great concern is the minister's wide discretionary powers. It can be a pretty scary thing. The minister could decide whether compensation should be given or not. He would have the power to decide how much compensation would be paid. The minister would decide whether provincial laws were effective or not and whether the federal government would step in to impose the law.

Those are the kind of wide powers that the minister would have. That kind of discretion is the opposite of transparency. On this very day on Parliament Hill there are a number of real estate agents. Various members have met with them through the course of the day. They have expressed to me personally the major concern they have about these wide discretionary powers granted to the minister in this particular bill.

The government has refused to provide any proper draft legislation about the process for compensation, who would qualify and how much one would receive? Those are pretty critical and essential points.

Where is the technical amendment which would provide a predictable process for property owners to seek compensation? The all party committee of the House said the minister must draft regulations but the government seems to want to stay away from that obligation. Where is the technical amendment which would set out the criteria that the minister would use to determine whether a provincial law would be effective or not? Again, the committee rightly put some criteria into the bill but the government wants to take that out as well.

The process for action plans and recovery plans needs to be transparent and so must the process in other areas as well.

Farmers, ranchers and other such people can be of real help to us. They can be our best allies in respect to a bill like this. Providing incentives for habitat protection by promoting good management practices is a good thing. The Canadian Alliance supports stewardship and incentives for protecting habitat. We believe that farmers and ranchers are some of the best conservationists and that their stewardship initiatives must be acknowledged and encouraged.

I know I speak for a wide variety of people, but certainly for those in my own constituency of Saskatoon--Wanuskewin, when I say that farmers understand the importance of maintaining a healthy environment. Farmers, ranchers and agricultural people are primary stakeholders and as such their rights must be respected in the bill before us today.

We believe there should be protection. We should preserve Canada's natural environment and endangered species as well as the sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

There are major concerns about the bill. It does not measure up. We are vigorously opposed to Bill C-5 in its current form. We will rue the day because of some of the implications, amplifications and fallout from the bill. Therefore we stand opposed to Bill C-5.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-5, the species at risk act. Before I do that once again I thank my colleagues in the House who have sent me best wishes, flowers and prayers for my speedy recovery. Since this is my first day back I have gone from an S.O. 31, to questions, and to debate all in one day. It shows that I have regained my strength. I am happy to be here and to represent the constituents of Calgary East.

I grew up in Africa. I was born very close to one of the world's most renowned national parks, the Ngorongora Conservation Area near the Ngorongora crater. During the time that I was growing up I had the great privilege of seeing and observing wildlife that is home to that part of the world. It is one of the best places where one can see wildlife in its natural habitat. Conservation has been important to me; it is paramount. It grew up with me. I always take an interest in looking at and ensuring that we have good conservation policies.

While growing up in Africa near this national park it became evident, after the boundaries of the national parks were made, that poaching as well as the killing of animals was taking place because the people who lived near the park derived no benefit from the national park. For sound management practices, to ensure that the wildlife was not put at risk, it became necessary for the management of this wildlife to become partners with the local population who lived near there to ensure the viability of that national park. This became one of the important issues.

Today, most people and governments recognize that if they do not work in partnership with the people who are the players then they cannot have good conservation policies. That is what is missing in Bill C-5.

We are not making people partners in Bill C-5. We are telling them what we want, but that does not mean they are partners in the conservation process. Most people who believe in conservation will know that if we do not make them partners the conservation practices will not last for long. We are putting species at more risk if we do not make people partners. That is what is wrong with the species at risk act.

The Canadian Alliance is not opposed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. As a matter of fact not only in Canada but the world over. Our opposition to the bill does not mean that the Canadian Alliance is opposed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment.

We want to outline what is wrong with the bill. We are not making the people who will be affected by the species at risk act as partners. I am talking of landowners, land users, et cetera. There is no compensation process. The government's own committee pointed that out.

Interestingly, my office receives many postcards from conservationists who ask us to support the bill. If I receive a postcard asking me to protect species at risk, I will say yes. Who would not say yes? However the message misses all the other points. It misses the issue of compensation and the review period. These were highlighted in committee by experts and Liberal members agreed to those points.

There is a campaign now where individuals are sending a message about species at risk. It seems to have reached the PMO. It is giving direction to individuals to ignore what the experts have said and to ignore what everybody has said. These higher officials are telling people how it will be done. The bureaucrats say they will do it because there seems to be a campaign going on.

Why am I talking about this campaign? The reason is because my office has received numerous postcards telling me to vote for the species at risk legislation. I have written to these individuals explaining that there are problems with the bill and outlining the problems. I tell them we need to fix it and get it right. What is wrong with getting it right? All the government has to do is get it right and get going so we can genuinely protect species at risk.

We have problems in the bill which have already been highlighted. I recall speaking to the bill when it came out for the first time. I highlighted the same issues at that time. I wonder who is listening. The environment committee made recommendations and nobody listened. The government refused to listen.

This issue begs a number of questions. Will the bill protect species at risk? Is the bill drawn up in the right manner? Is it consistent with the objectives of ensuring that species at risk are protected for years to come? This is not a five year situation. We must protect endangered species for years to come.

The bill is flawed. Many members will rise and speak against the bill. The Canadian Alliance is opposed to the legislation. I know I am repeating myself when I say that the Alliance is not against protecting and preserving Canada's wildlife, but I want to ensure Liberal members do not say that the Alliance is not in favour of protecting and preserving Canada's natural wildlife. They have a habit twisting the message around. That is why I keep repeating the message. The Canadian Alliance is not against protecting and preserving Canada's wildlife.

How can we support a bill that even the experts say requires refinement so it is done right in the first place? It will now be left up to the whim of the government to decide when to review the legislation. Based on past whims of the government we know things change. We know the government is fast asleep. The bureaucracy moves slowly. We just need to look at the immigration bill and how long it took before it was reviewed.

The Canadian Alliance supports protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment, but we cannot support Bill C-5 for the reasons outlined.

[Werner Schmidt, Canadian Alliance, Kelowna, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to welcome back a colleague who has served our caucus well, who has served the House well, who represents the constituents of Calgary East very well. He has suffered from a misfortune, ill health and almost was unable to come back and visit with us, to put his shoulder to the wheel and help us do the job that needs to be done. We welcome the hon. member back, encourage him and may he be healthy for many years to come. It is good to have him back.

I thank him for the wonderful speech he has just made. He articulated many of the things which I think we need to look at.

I want to approach the bill from a principled point of view and ask two questions. Is the bill democratically conceived? My other question is the one with which my colleague actually ended his speech. Does the bill protect species at risk and does it do so in an equitable and fair manner? I wish to address those questions as I go through various amendments in the bill.

I was really impressed by the Minister of the Environment during question period. He made a very interesting statement. He said that the one thing we have to do when we create legislation in the House and when we deal with the affairs of the country, we must be sure that we listen to the people, that we pay very careful attention to what the people are saying and that we do it in a manner that will meet their needs, their interests so that indeed we can be the democrats that we purport to be. That is what he said. I think my colleagues will all verify that is what the hon. Minister of the Environment said.

Guess what. Right here in the bill, right off the top what do we find? We find that the committee recommended that the bill should have a five year review. The committee recommended a five year review. What did the government do? No, it would not do that. The government is going to review the bill when it thinks it ought to be reviewed. That is wrong, wrong, wrong. That is the way in which the government operates. So right off the top we have some difficulties with the bill.

I want to get into a very specific part of the bill, the creation of the stewardship action plans. Motion No. 25 deals with the creation of stewardship action plans.

The standing committee had required that stewardship action plans must include a commitment to examine regularly “tax treatment and subsidies” and “to eliminate disincentives”. The government wants to delete this language but it is vital. Why? It demonstrates that compensation is not just in cash payment but could involve other things like tax treatment which is so vital to farmers and other property owners.

Further, while the government always wants to create incentives and programs, it must be forced to confront the realities of disincentives, the reasons that people do not respond.

My hon. colleague just a moment ago said that if people are not involved in conservation, if they do not make it their business, it is impossible to police the actions that will actually result in conservation. The ivory tower theories of bureaucrats will never do the kinds of things they say they will do unless the people actually agree that they want to do it.

The government also wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons who are engaged in stewardship activities. Get this: The government will provide information relating to technical and scientific support available to persons engaged in stewardship activities. This is a small but significant difference. Instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species on property to protect the sensitive habitat for example, the government can simply mail them a brochure and say “Have a look at this” and that is what they do. Thanks a lot.

The motion extensively modifies the amendment of the standing committee that introduced this stewardship action plan. The amendment reinforces an earlier government amendment that makes the development of an action plan discretionary. Is that not interesting. There is a stewardship action plan that is required that is provided for but it is discretionary and not mandatory, although when the minister chooses to develop an action plan, the motion would still dictate some elements to be included.

When a piece of legislation says that maybe it is mandatory or maybe it is not mandatory, we come to the point where we say what is this? Is this whimsical legislation that allows the minister to do whatever he or she wants to do whenever he or she feels like doing it?

The committee did not mandate compensation, but at least required that the minister commit regularly to examine tax treatment and subsidies and to eliminate disincentives for people who protect species at risk.

I cannot avoid talking about compensation. Is it not interesting that the bill could provide for the opportunity of the minister to confiscate land, to take away property without compensation.

Canada is a democracy. Canada is a country where people are supposed to have a say in what happens. I want to underline, as my colleagues have, that the Canadian Alliance and I personally definitely are not opposed to protecting species that are at risk. Members of my family and I are very strong conservationists and have always been. To take the position that it is possible to take away property, to take away the freedom to enjoy and to use personal property simply at the whim of a minister, that may put at risk a different species, that species being those who own property. The bill is completely silent about that. That is not right.

The committee's amendment requires the commitment to provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. Instead the government commits to providing information. Landowners can expect a far lower level of support by virtue of this amendment. The government is asking them to assume significant responsibilities, It is threatening them with criminal sanctions for even inadvertent errors, yet it refuses to offer technical assistance as to how they could actually do the job.

We must strongly oppose this particular amendment which waters down the original intent of the legislation.

Motion No. 29 is a modification of amendments carried by the standing committee. It removes the requirements imposed by the standing committee to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on draft contribution agreements still under discussion, as well as publish them when they are complete. This is unacceptable.

A stewardship agreement can affect not just the landowner but neighbouring lands too. For example, the introduction of wolves back into an ecosystem in certain parts of the western United States affects not just the national parks involved, and I believe this happened at Yellowstone National Park, but all the ranchers in the area as well.

Therefore, it is essential that proposed stewardship agreements must be made public prior to being finalized. It is part of that consultation program, yet somehow it is not required. We must oppose that kind of highhanded thinking.

The intent of Motion No. 114 is to accommodate the changes made by the standing committee to the bill which establish proposed management plans. Specifically, it requires that management plans that adopt existing plans are considered to be proposed management plans and are subject to a public comment period. That sounds like a pretty good idea. Let us do that. We would definitely support this motion.

Under Motion No. 24 any government in Canada, organization or person must provide a copy of the stewardship action plan and must be included in the public registry. Consistent with other transparency provisions in the bill, the motion proposes that a copy of the plan be included in the public registry. This is a positive amendment which increases the flow of information to the public.

An amendment was made by a Canadian Alliance member to the effect that this information should be made public. The word public was inserted. This is a very positive amendment that came forward. I wish the government would see fit to put that amendment forward.

There has been a bit of negative and a bit of positive in my analysis, and my speech was far from finished. I would ask the government to please consider this amendment and at least make public the information so that everyone knows what is involved in the stewardship action plans and the technical information necessary for people to actually exercise the stewardship that we all want them to do.

[Philip Mayfield, Canadian Alliance, Cariboo—Chilcotin, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the report stage debate on Bill C-5.

As we debate the bill I am reminded this is not the first time it has been debated. There have been other manifestations of the bill in previous years and other parliaments. As we were considering this issue in one of those debates I received a phone call from a lady in Ontario not too far from where we are right now. I have told this story in the House before but I am going to repeat it.

This lady was told that under the Ontario species at risk legislation, she was going to be forced to give up the use of a piece of property she had bought. She had purchased a piece of vacant land. She had an idea in mind and she borrowed a considerable amount of money to purchase this piece of property and then paid the costs of planning and developing. Before it was finished, she was notified that the property was no longer available for the use she had planned on and that an endangered species had been discovered on it. It was a bird, I believe it was a shrike. I wish I could remember the specific name. In any case this lady said that whatever we do, we should keep in mind the people who innocently get involved in situations like this.

This lady bought the property, paid for it and owed the money to the bank. No one is going to buy it back from her. What is she going to do besides suffer the consequences of not being able to take advantage of an investment she made and not being able to repay it? The money she had saved, the money she was able to borrow and the resources she used to guarantee the loan were all lost.

This is a consequence of highhanded legislation where a government has as its lowest priority those people it purports to represent. This situation is not new. There have been other stories and incidents like this one that the government has been able to take advantage of, but because it has the authority, the power and the majority in parliament under the whip to enforce that power, the taxpayers, Canadian citizens, the ones who are supposed to benefit from the resources of this vast, beautiful and rich country of ours, are left without. They are ditched.

At committee a number of amendments were proposed to the legislation that would allow public consultation to include members of the public. Those who were faced with finding endangered species on their property would be allowed to enter into a relationship with authorities and conservation officials using the guidelines of the legislation. They would work together in a co-operative manner to protect endangered species.

What would happen if someone inadvertently walked across a valuable piece of property and found an endangered species? Would the temptation be to run and tell someone and face the risk of having that property confiscated, taken away, not to be used? Not a chance. As a matter of fact, when the loggers were faced with the spotted owl threat earlier on, a well-known official told his people “If you see one of those things, shoot the damn thing and get a shovel and bury it”.

We are concerned about endangered species. There must be a co-operative effort initiated by the government in legislation such as this, but unfortunately not with this legislation, so people can co-operate with those who are concerned about the loss of endangered species. There must be a method of public consultation whereby people clearly know the rules. If there is an endangered species, people can begin to co-operate immediately for the benefit of that species and not be faced with the threat of losing what they have or faced with the consequences and all of the costs of the unfortunate discovery of an endangered species on their property.

As one who was born to rural life and lived on a ranch, it is a wonderful thing to be involved with the various species of birds, animals, plant life and micro-organisms. I can remember as a child being on my belly watching things like frog eggs. It is something that we must cherish. It is something that is part of our Canadian heritage. We must not allow people in areas that have no responsibility for endangered species to take over control of the program so that those who bear the burden must suffer all the consequences.

It has been my observation that in the House we are often told that Canadians are a community of people. Yet in this circumstance it is not the community that is bearing the consequences or the costs; it is the individual. The legislation, with the amendments the government has introduced, strips the consultative process from this.

For example, most of the amendments in Group No. 4 concern issues of notice, public consultation and discussion. This presents opportunities to stress the fundamental importance of making consultations as wide as possible, of ensuring that consultations have a real impact on the administration of the act and are not done simply for show.

Included in this was the proposal for a five year review of the act. Initially the bill had provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk act five years after it came into force. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. Motion No. 130 from the government however will remove this standing committee amendment. It does not think the automatic five years are needed and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it be deemed necessary.

You and I, Madam Speaker, have sat at committee together. We have worked in parliament enough to know that parliament does not do anything until the executive decides that parliament will do it. How will parliament do what needs to be done, to put something on the agenda if the government has already determined it is not necessary? This is totally wrong. It denies people the input, the opportunity to be consulted, to know, to respond favourably and to act in a co-operative manner for something of which we are all in favour.

Not only is it contemptuous again of the standing committee, it removes an opportunity for greater accountability and for public involvement. Mandatory reviews of legislation, not quite as effective as a sunset clause but perhaps a close second, are important for ensuring that an act is working as intended and for creating an opportunity to make changes that will simply not be left to the whim of the government House leader of the day to fit his particular agenda.

This is basic democracy. It is accountability. It ensures that legislation is ever kept current, ever kept green.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise once again to speak to Bill C-5. Let me begin by confirming that the Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species.

The bill, as drafted, has serious flaws which could ultimately work against the goal and the intent of the bill which is to save endangered species and plants. Not only that, but the bill contains numerous flaws in the way the public and property owners are to be compensated, consulted and informed if at all in some cases. If that is not enough, it legislates segregation that will put Canadians under different rules depending on who their parents are. It has no place in a country such as Canada.

The government has failed miserably with the softwood lumber agreement and innocent victims are paying for that cost across this country. We cannot afford to let that happen again. The endangered species bill must be treated very seriously, not just rewritten and changed on the whim of the PMO.

Let us start with respect. First, the PMO's draft makes this flawed bill worse. In addition it flies in the face of parliamentary democracy. For example, in Motion Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 relating to Bill C-5, the standing committee wanted to create a national aboriginal council. The PMO instead wants to call it a committee. It is changing the words in various clauses.

The idea of an aboriginal committee is acceptable. Clearly in many places, especially in the north, natives have a kinship with the land and so consultation with them is appropriate, just as it is with other stakeholders such as property owners and resource based industries. However the name change from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work without justification. The government, in a contemptuous manner, is showing complete disregard for the hard work and the expertise of the parliamentary committee and its own MPs. How does this top-down control from the Prime Minister's Office help protect endangered species?

I would like to address the area of compensation. What upsets me most about the bill is that landowners risk losing the use of their land to save a species and there is no commitment from the government to compensate. The act will not work without guaranteeing fair and reasonable compensation to property owners and resource users who suffer losses. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species but should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihoods.

The shift in the cost to the landowners is inexcusable. It creates a disincentive for them to protect the endangered species. That is what this is supposed to accomplish. There must be guaranteed compensation to landowners for the loss of their property so that we can be sure that both the interests of the species and the people who live alongside them will be accommodated.

Government Motion No. 25 removes any recognition that property owners face hardship by protecting endangered species. The legislation not only fails to see reality but also fails to recognize the financial burden this act would potentially place on landowners.

We are projected to spend $45 million for species at risk, a small amount of money when we consider we are trying to protect animals and plant life that may disappear from this earth forever. The government has deemed fit to spend over $700 million for gun registry. It has not worked. It will not solve the problem. We spent $101 million for luxury jets we did not need. Now, according to today's auditor general's report, we are writing off $1 billion a year in taxes.

One has to ask what the government is thinking when we see such twisted priorities. Perhaps a better use for taxpayer money would be to aid the landowners for the loss of their property. We need to protect endangered species and in preventing their extinction, we also must protect the rights of landowners before they too become extinct. We must give adequate compensation. Until that is addressed within the bill, I will not support it and neither will my party.

Consultation with the public on bills and issues that concern them is a hallmark of our democracy. Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners to protect endangered species, the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust with its refusal to conduct real consultation with the public and affected stakeholders.

It is of fundamental importance to make consultation as wide as possible. The government must not only listen but heed what is said by stakeholders and ensure that consultations have a real impact on the administration of the act and are not just simply done for show.

Given the harsh criminal sanctions contained in the bill, it is completely unacceptable for the minister to possess information about the presence of a listed species and withhold that information from the landowner. Under these guidelines, due to government imposed ignorance, people can be guilty of a criminal offence if they unknowingly harm a species or its habitat.

Therefore, our second amendment requires that regardless whether the minister publicly releases information about the presence of a species or not, he must in all cases advise the affected landowner. Given the criminal sanctions involved, this is only fair.

Sadly, the government is treating the Canadian public with the same respect it afforded the parliamentary standing committee. Any consultations that do take place will not be in good faith since it has already made up its mind on all the key points and is unwilling to listen to other points of view.

There is a systemic problem with the secretive government in releasing information. This unfortunate quality applies to Bill C-5 as well. There are severe criminal sanctions contained in the bill, yet the government does not want to release relevant information to affected stakeholders. Does that make any sense?

Government Motion No. 126 deletes the requirement for “all ministerial reports including listing decisions” to be entered in a public registry. This reduces transparency and public access to important documents giving insight into how the list of endangered species is developed. In the interest of transparency, all relevant documents should be made available through open channels instead of forcing citizens to go through the loops, the hassles and the delays of access to information requests.

We support putting maximum information into the registry so that interested stakeholders may see what is happening. The fact is the implication of an agreement between the government and one person may have far reaching consequences on his or her neighbours. Transparency is essential. Transparency is defined as being able to see clearly, not translucent where one can sort of see but cannot tell what is going on.

[An hon. member]

Not opaque.

[Betty Hinton, Canadian Alliance, Kamloops, Thompson And Highland Valleys, BC]

Not opaque; I agree.

The other part we have that I mentioned earlier is race based law. Race based law is not the answer. When we talk about fairness, and when I mention the phrase “race based law”, there is a reason for the concern. It seems however that in this piece of legislation we have race based law which applies to non-aboriginal people but does not apply to aboriginal people. Therefore, we may find ourselves in a position where private land sits next to reserve land and each piece of land has a different set of rules to follow based on its owner's race. Everyone can see what the danger is here. We have to have something that applies to both aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. The current legislation does not address that adequately.

I wish this legislation actually protected plants and animals in danger of dying off. Unfortunately, the serious flaws in the bill make the animals safer now than they will be if the bill passes.

Putting the burden of criminal liability and land appropriation on Canadians who happen to live next to a species in danger is bad enough. When it is coupled with a lack of compensation, consultation, information and a race based, two tier system, we have a bill that is dangerous to law-abiding citizens and that is dangerous to plants and animals.

The government is asking landowners to assume significant responsibilities and is threatening them with criminal sanctions for even inadvertent errors, yet refuses to offer tangible assistance or even relevant information. Criminal liability must require intent. The act would make criminals out of people who may inadvertently and unknowingly harm endangered species or their habitat. This is unnecessarily confrontational and it makes endangered species a threat to property owners.

If the legislation is put through with its bias, its unfairness and its lack of compensation, we can expect the list of endangered species to grow by leaps and bounds.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst, Employment Insurance.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to debate the Group No. 4 amendments to Bill C-5. In this grouping there is a common theme and it is an especially disturbing theme. That theme is one of outright interference in the work of a parliamentary committee. Canadians should be very concerned with the government's actions.

As many of my colleagues have already noted, it cannot be stressed enough that when a committee of the House of Commons is charged with examining a piece of legislation, that work must be taken seriously. Enormous time and resources are spent hearing from expert witnesses and making subsequent recommendations for changes to that legislation. The contempt that the government has shown for the work of the environment committee is astounding.

Group No. 4 highlights that contempt in many ways. First, Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 deal with aspects of the creation of a national aboriginal committee. The environment committee called for the creation of this body clearly because natives have a close relationship with the land, especially in the north, and so consultation over habitat and species at risk with them is vital.

The committee's report called for this new body to be called the national aboriginal council. In this instance, the government changed the word council to committee apparently simply for the sake of making the change. There is no good reason to make such a change. This is perhaps the most blatant of the changes that show the contempt this government has for the work of its committee which, I might add, is dominated by government backbenchers.

I will present to the Chair several more examples of tampering with the work of the committee before I am finished today, but before I do so I would like to say a few more words about the national aboriginal committee. As I mentioned earlier, the creation of the committee itself is acceptable given the relationship that natives have with the land. Therefore, consultation with them is very appropriate. It is also important to mention in the same breath that it will be equally as important to consult with other stakeholders such as property owners and resource users. The existence of the national aboriginal committee should not preclude wider consultation with others, and special care must be taken to ensure that it does not become a special conduit for race related political concerns.

The administration of the act must concern itself with the protection of endangered species in a sustainable socioeconomic manner. Special privileges and exemptions from the act's application should not be based on race. I am very skeptical, however, that the government will ever be able to live up to this standard as it is clear that the government already discriminates based on race. This is exemplified in the current sentencing provisions of criminal code section 718, where aboriginal Canadians are already given special consideration based on their race alone. My concern of course is that they will be given different treatment for contravening this act than will any other landowner or corporation.

Next I would like to discuss the creation of stewardship action plans. Once again, Motion No. 25 is one that the government is introducing and that completely overrides the committee's work. I cannot even begin to imagine the frustration of government members of the environment committee who, with the co-operation of the opposition, created a report for parliament only to have it totally ignored by their colleagues in cabinet.

The standing committee had required that stewardship action plans must include a commitment to regularly examine “tax treatment and subsidies” and “to eliminate disincentives”. The government wants to delete this vital language. It shows that compensation is not just a cash payment. It could involve other things like tax treatment, things that are so vital to farmers and other property owners. In addition, the government always wants to create incentives and programs, but it must be forced to confront the realities of disincentives. There are usually good reasons why people do not respond the way bureaucrats think they should.

The government also wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. Instead, it will:

provide information relating to the technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities.

This is a small but significant difference. Now, instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species or assistance in configuring their property to protect sensitive habitat, the government can, for example, mail them a pamphlet. Gee whiz and thanks, especially when one considers the very serious criminal penalties for knowingly or unknowingly contravening the act.

Continuing with the theme of tampering with standing committee work, I would like to point out Motion No. 130, which will remove yet another of the standing committee's amendments to the bill. Initially the bill had provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk act five years after it came into force. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. Motion No. 130 from the government would remove the standing committee amendment. It does not think that automatic five year reviews are needed and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it deem a review necessary.

I would like to point out that I currently sit on the Standing Committee for Justice and Human Rights and we are now in the process of reviewing the mental disorder provisions of the criminal code, which actually have a mandatory five year review clause. The legislation was passed and implemented in 1991. The review should have been undertaken over five years ago, but we are just getting to it now, today.

[An hon. member]

And that is mandatory.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

And that is mandatory, as my colleague says, but I guess it is better late than never.

With the deletion of the standing committee's amendment, I doubt that the legislation will be reviewed by parliament until there is a more responsible party at its helm.

I could go on citing examples of how the Liberal government, or should I say certain cabinet ministers, because the members of the standing committee have not been listened to, has contemptibly changed the committee's report but I think the point has been made.

In conclusion I would simply like to point out to Canadians the utter lack of respect the government has for individuals in this country, including its own backbenchers and the legions of expert witnesses who were heard on these issues at the standing committee.

The rest of Group No. 4 deals with public consultation on issues surrounding Bill C-5 and I dare say that these consultations will simply be a farce, just like the hearings of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development were on Bill C-5.

[Reed Elley, Canadian Alliance, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to join in this important debate on Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. I believe it is important that I go on record to state categorically that legislation on species at risk is of course extremely important. We must be good stewards of the land, the water and the air that God has given to us. Along with my fellow members of the Canadian Alliance, I am committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and, of course, endangered species.

That is why it is with a certain degree of sadness that I must say it is so unfortunate that the legislation actually falls short of making any kind of sense. There are many aspects that cause me great concern. Of primary concern, of course, is that I do not believe that this act will actually work as it plays itself out unless it guarantees fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who will suffer losses under this present legislation. The farmers, ranchers and other property owners who also want to protect endangered species should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihoods.

There are several issues specific to the Group No. 4 amendments, which simply do not meet the standard of parliamentary democracy that all members of the House should be upholding. Committees are intended to be masters of their own destiny and rightly so. However, when the environment minister sets aside the committee's recommendations and ignores its deliberations I believe that something is very wrong with the current state of the House of Commons.

Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 deal with aspects of the national aboriginal committee. The standing committee had originally intended to create a national aboriginal council, but the government instead wants to call it a committee. This seems to border on semantics and therefore we have several amendments today that change “council” to “committee”. It troubles me that the name change from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work with no good justification.

This is just one more example of the government, or perhaps I should say more correctly the Prime Minister's Office, showing nothing more than contempt for the work of this parliamentary committee and its own MPs. These are changes made just for the sake of wielding power. Unfortunately we have seen the Prime Minister's Office, through the whip, doing this on more than one occasion in the past. Is it any wonder that Canadians stayed away from the ballot box in record numbers during the last election? They feel cynical about the voice that their own representatives have in the House of Commons. When the backbenchers of any government are so restricted as to not even be able to adequately represent their own constituents and the very deliberations of their respective committees, we must recognize that democracy is gone and the dictatorship of the Prime Minister's Office has taken its place.

The idea of an aboriginal committee is in itself acceptable. In many parts of Canada, especially the northern reaches of the provinces as well as the far north, native people have an intimate knowledge of the land. Therefore, consultation with them is appropriate and desired in addition to consultation with the other stakeholders such as property owners and resource users. Motion No. 6 by the government calls for nothing more than the deletion of the term national aboriginal council, which is replaced with the term aboriginal committee later on in clause 7. This type of name change is nothing less than a slap in the face of the standing committee. It does not justify reversing the work of the committee. We must remember that these changes were initiated by Liberal members on the committee. This shows the government's contempt for the work of parliamentary committees as well as its own MPs. Certainly on that basis alone I will be opposing this amendment.

Motion No. 16 follows the same pattern by diluting the role that the aboriginal committee would have with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. Let us remember that this council is made up of the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and ministers of the government of a province or a territory who are responsible for the conservation and management of a wildlife species in that province or territory. I believe that we run the risk of making decisions based upon political rhetoric rather than sound, good science. In honour of the committee's original recommendations, I will be opposing this motion as well.

Motions Nos. 17 and 20 continue this pattern of disrespect by the PMO and the government whip. With the respect that I have for standing committee deliberations, I will oppose them also.

The next section of amendments deals with the creation of stewardship action plans. The government is introducing such far reaching amendments to the standing committee's work that all members of the House need to take special note of it. Again we see the utter contempt of the PMO for the work of a parliamentary committee.

Originally the standing committee had required that the stewardship action plans must include a commitment to regularly examine any tax treatment and subsidies, as well as to eliminate disincentives. This is vital and yet what does the government want to do? The government wants to delete this language from the bill.

The government seems to believe that compensation is not just a cash payment but could involve other things like tax treatments which are so vital to farmers and other property owners. The government is attempting, through the use of tax incentives and disincentives, to force land and resource owners to bend to the government's will.

The bottom line appears to be that if the landowner does not follow the wishes of the government, the government will find other means of achieving its political decision.

Farmers in particular have been hit so hard these past number of years through drought, flood and global subsidy wars why on earth would the government want to put one more economic barrier in front of them?

As I have already stated, I believe that decisions, such as those involving species at risk, should be made on real science not political lobbying or political expedience.

Now the government wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. As an alternative, the government will make information relating to technical and scientific support available to persons engaged in stewardship activities.

This small but significant difference means that instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species or assistance in configuring their property to protect sensitive habitat, the government can simply mail a pamphlet to them.

All is not gloom and doom today. I am pleased that the government has brought forward Motions Nos. 24 and 114. Motion No. 24 strengthens the legislation by placing a copy of the stewardship action plan in the public registry. I believe this is consistent with the other provisions of the bill that provide transparency. This is a positive amendment that would increase the flow of information to the public.

Motion No. 114 requires that management plans that adopt existing plans are considered to be proposed management plans until also subject to a public comment period. The intent of the motion is to accommodate the changes made by the standing committee to the bill which would establish proposed management plans. Although this is primarily a technical amendment, I will be supporting it.

Unfortunately, the remainder of the amendments run counter to the proposals made by the standing committee to the bill and, as such, I will be opposing the remainder of them.

I know my time is running short and I did want to mention concerns regarding the public consultation process under the bill, specifically the five year review and the maximum public information available.

Initially the bill had provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk act five years after coming into force. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. However government Motion No. 130 removes the standing committee amendment and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it deem it necessary.

I believe that this is wrong and again shows contempt for the standing committee. Greater accountability and public involvement should be an integral part of our democratic process.

The government had an opportunity to do something really good. Species at risk is something with which we are all concerned, and rightly so. Unfortunately this legislation is flawed and the government amendments further take away from the legitimacy of the bill as well.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to stand in the House of Commons, the House of the representatives of the people of Canada, to debate this very important bill, Bill C-5, a bill relating to the preservation of species at risk.

I believe this is an historic debate today. It will be one of the most significant debates of the last eight or nine years. The reason I say that is very simple. I have a belief in my heart that this will probably be the first government bill to be defeated in the House.

That in itself is a very optimistic statement but I really expect that this time all the Liberal members who worked so hard in committee to do what was right and who have been so dumped on by the whip and the government bureaucracy in this bill, will rise, as I think many of their colleagues will, in revolt. I would encourage them to do so.

I have to relate a little story. Not long ago I told one of the editors of a major paper in my riding of an instance in the House a number of weeks ago when there were no Liberals members at all. I am not speaking about now. I told the editor of the paper how I walked across the aisle and sat on the government side. I was perhaps out of order but I actually sat in the Prime Minister's chair, being the only member on that side of the House. I gave the excuse that there was a member on this side speaking and that it was very difficult to speak if one did not have an audience. I also said that there was something symbolic about the situation. I said that if no Liberals were ready to properly run the country that symbolically we were.

I told that to the reporter and she reported it in the paper. She said that I was a cheeky MP. Perhaps what I did on that occasion was cheeky but I made the point that government members, who have the majority and who by standing on a vote can cause a bill to pass or fail, have an awesome responsibility.

In this particular instance I think they have a wonderful opportunity to restore the sense of democracy, which ought to prevail in the House in any case, and that is that the wisdom of the committee and of the witnesses that were heard should actually be taken into account and should positively influence the legislation with which we are dealing.

Speaking of cheeky, I think if anyone is cheeky it is the arrogant Liberal government on the other side which thinks that whatever it comes up with in the back rooms cannot be revised or amended.

If any one of us in our relationship with other people, with our businesses or with our families were to give the impression that we could never make a mistake, that whatever we said was absolutely right and that whatever anyone else said was just automatically wrong because we did not say it, that would be the height of arrogance and it would go nowhere.

I believe that is what is happening with the bill, and I am very sad about it. The committee worked hard, heard from witnesses and made a number of recommendations to amend the bill and improve it.

Lo and behold, we come to third reading, because the committee reported. This was reported by all members of the committee, not just from one party or another. I believe in many instances these amendments were passed in committee unanimously. The committee reported Bill C-5 back to the House with amendments.

What happened after that? The government introduced a whole bunch of amendments at third reading. The only purpose of those third reading amendments was to nullify the work of all the witnesses and all the committee members.

I know that when I use certain words they reflect back on myself but I really cannot think of any other words to use than the words, what blatant arrogance. It is very unwise. I wish the government would wake up and recognize the collective investment Canadians put into their parliamentarians. It is not cheap. We know the expense of having individual member of parliament here, the office staff, the office costs and the travel costs, not to mention the salaries and the forthcoming pensions. All of that is a huge investment on the part of Canadians. I think it is about time that Canadians received value for that dollar.

If the Liberal members are not willing to finally assert themselves on this occasion, the best occasion I have seen in the over eight years I have been in parliament, and say that the work they did was valid, that they will stand by their work and that they will stand and vote against the amendments which nullify their work , then I think they will have missed a golden opportunity.

I was a math-physics major but I know somebody somewhere said that there is an opportunity, there is a chance given to men that comes but once. I think it goes something like, “a tide in the affairs of men which taken at the maximum leads on to fortune”. I have not referred to that poem since I was in high school. I am sure members can tell by looking at my hair that it was not years ago but decades ago. This is an opportunity for members to react.

My colleagues have talked about these different amendments. I think it would be a waste of my time to go through all those amendment again. My appeal is simply to those members who will read this speech in Hansard or who are watching it now on closed circuit television in the House of Commons, and my appeal to them is very straightforward. Let us do what Canadian taxpayers and Canadian voters have sent us here to do and are paying us here to do, which is to do what is right.

I would like to emphasize this further. In my whole life I have not very often been able to say that everything I have done today is right. I probably make one or two mistakes every day, sometimes three or four and sometimes more. I think it is a missed opportunity on the part of the government to not listen to the committee and to the witnesses who appeared before that committee. It is forcing through a bill with a bunch of amendments to get its way when what that produces is a bill far less effective than the bill that would result if these amendments by the government would be turned down in order to give us the bill that the committee studied and improved.

Why would the government not want to have an improved bill? We walk into the stores and we see soap and bread that is new and improved. It is better than it was before.

I subscribe to the theory that when the bill went to committee it was not as good as the bill which came back from committee because of the work members of the committee expended on it. They studied it and came up with some amendments.

I have to emphasize over and over again that the members of the House, who really believe their work was valuable and that they did improve the bill, should, in this particular case, although I hate to counsel defiance, defy the authority of their whip, stand their ground and say that they have done good work and that they will stand by it. I would like to see that. I intend to do that. I will vote against these amendments which undo the committee work. I invite all hon. members to join me in that.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my remarks short so that the member for Brandon--Souris might also have an opportunity to speak this afternoon. I am pleased that so many members of the Alliance are speaking. It clearly shows the interest in the House and on this side of the House for good legislation and for the democratic process.

I rise today and speak as the member for Winnipeg North Centre, a member of the NDP, but also as the guardian of the western prairie fringed orchid. That was the responsibility handed to me by I believe by the International Fund for Animal Welfare, which has called on many of us in the House to adopt a species that is on the list of endangered species or a threatened species. I am very proud to be responsible for the western prairie fringed orchid. It is a beautiful plant that I think many Canadians want to see preserved and protected.

Let me tell members about the western prairie fringed orchid. The plant grows in the western prairie region and has a long flower spike. It is topped with a crown of white or creamy flowers. Each has a distinctly fringed lower petal and it has many seed capsules.

I am sure the member for Brandon--Souris will join me in espousing great concern about this species because it comes from the southwestern Manitoba region. The plant grows in the whole area of southwestern Manitoba, south to Kansas.

The species has declined significantly throughout its range. More than 90% of the world's known population of the western prairie fringed orchid occurs in the Red River valley of North Dakota, Minnesota and south central Manitoba.

It is likely the orchid was once more widely distributed throughout southern Manitoba, but the number of sites has declined drastically with the loss of the tall grass prairie habitat.

Presently the population of the western prairie fringed orchid is restricted to a 42 square kilometre area around the Manitoba townships of Vita and Stuartburn. I should also point out that during a recent survey there were at least 8,000 to 9,000 flowering plants in the entire Canadian population.

We have this beautiful and rare plant growing in certain conditions unique to southern and central Manitoba, and it is on the verge of extinction.

The threats are many and I would like to very briefly summarize them because they point to the absolute need for an endangered species legislation that is tough, proactive and in line with the recommendations made by the environment committee.

The orchid is at the northern edge of its range and is limited by climate. It probably has a low reproductive potential and is sensitive to various periodic climatic effects, particularly precipitation and temperature. It is clear also that the habitat loss, and this is important for the bill, is the main factor responsible for population decline.

Tall grass prairie has been cultivated to form agricultural fields. Loss of habitat may also be affecting the population of the orchid's pollinators, thereby reducing the plant's ability to reproduce. Overgrazing, intensive hay mowing, drainage of wet areas, competition with introduced species and fire suppression are all factors which have led to serious threats to the western prairie fringed orchid.

It is also worth noting that there have been attempts in the Manitoba region to preserve and protect this rare orchid. There are three sites in Manitoba that have been purchased to ensure the protection of the western prairie fringed orchid. The species is being monitored and managed on these lands. It was declared endangered under Manitoba's endangered species act of 1994.

Recovery efforts are going on in that province and there is an active movement afoot to try to preserve and protect this endangered species. All of this points to the absolute imperative for the government to finally move on the recommendations advanced by activists in the community as well as representatives from all political parties who want to see tough legislation, who want to see mandatory actions on the part of government and who want to see science based decision making.

I just want to say a couple of more things relating to a poll that just came out that others have referenced in the debate. The new national poll just out found that few Canadians support the federal government's proposed amendments to the species at risk act. In fact it found that only 11% of Canadians agree with the government that habitat protection should be at the discretion of politicians. Whereas more than 76% believe habitat protection should be required by law.

We have what we need to act. We have the knowledge and the information about endangered species. We know the precarious situation facing those species, particularly the western prairie fringed orchid. We know that Canadians support tough action by government and want to see mandatory regulations, tough provisions to protect those species and independent scientists making the decisions.

All this knowledge gives us the recipe for the government to act. Yet we have a government that has decided to bypass and sidestep the many good recommendations from months of work by the environment committee, work that resulted in all party co-operation and in the proposal before us today, particularly with the amendments in Group No. 4 which we are now addressing.

Given this information, given the desire of Canadians, given the all party co-operation and the will displayed in this Chamber, surely the government can see its way clear once and for all to act on those recommendations, to act on the spirit of Canadian wishes and to act on the basis of good science and good information. We would hope today that the government, after all these hours of debate on the bill, after the years of waiting and the decades of consideration and study, would finally do the bare minimum, which is to act on the bill as amended by the environment committee. That is the bare minimum the government can do and we look to see some results today.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today to speak to the category amendments on Bill C-5. It is important to point out that I wish it was not just simply members of the opposition who spoke with respect to the bill. It would be nice to have members of the government speak to the bill, particularly those members who sat on the committee, who put forward such good amendments at the committee level and who insisted upon changes to a piece of legislation that made it very workable. They made it a piece of legislation that I am sure, had it come forward from the committee the way it was debated, would have been approved by all of the members of the House, including those who sit on this side. I wish that some of those committee--

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member is reflecting on the behaviour of members on this side of the House which I do not think is in compliance with the rules of the House. I also bring to the hon. member's attention the fact that members on this side of the House can only speak once and many of us have done so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

That is not a point of order, but the message has been passed on.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that message being passed. I have a lot of respect for the hon. gentleman who just spoke. I also suggest, however, that it does not just necessarily have to be members of the government who sat in the committee who could speak to this legislation. It can be any member of the sitting government that can speak, and speak favourably, to the committee's work. That is to what I was alluding. I was suggesting that the committee actually work the way a committee should work.

First, I would like to congratulate our member who sat on that committee for hours on end listening to stakeholders, witnesses and to people who had some very valid points to bring forward. The member for Fundy--Royal was very excited that even government members on that committee accepted some of his amendments in the committee stage. That is how a committee should work.

Unfortunately, somewhere between the time the committee accepted those amendments and the time they hit the House floor other amendments were put forward that changed the whole legislation. We will speak to those because that indeed is what we are talking about today with respect to Group No. 4. I know the hon. member from the government side who just chastised me would be very happy to realize that one amendment the committee asked for was a five year review of the legislation.

That is not an unheard of request. We have asked for sunset clauses on other pieces of legislation, but in this case the committee suggested that there should be a five year review of this legislation. Is that so terrible? We do not know how the legislation will affect endangered species or species at risk five years from now, so let us go back and review it. However coming forward in Group No. 4 is a government amendment suggesting that that not happen.

For what reason, I do not know. I am sure the hon. member would agree with me that it was a good idea to bring the legislation back for review in five years. However the government has decided it is not necessary, that it knows best and that the legislation can go on in perpetuity or until it decides to bring it forward.

This is the third kick at the cat in bringing this legislation forward. The first two kicks at the cat never happened because it was defeated on the order paper. In effect the government has had 10 years to bring the legislation forward but it does not want to review it in five years. To me it does not make any sense, especially when the committee suggested that that happen. To have a Liberal government member vote against this suggestion from the committee is, in my opinion, voting against the committee and the committee form of government that presently exists.

The second thing is that the committee put forward an amendment, and the hon. member will remember this, to establish a council of first nations members to advise the minister. A committee suggested that the amendment come forward, yet it has been changed. The hon. member is going to stand now in the House and explain why he and the rest of his government colleagues are going to vote against the absolute opportunity to have a committee of first nations members come forward to advise the minister on issues of species at risk. The government has gutted it out. The committee wanted it to happen.

The first nations who were given that opportunity are mad, as they rightfully should be. They were the ones who suggested that this was a very good change to the legislation. It was agreed to at committee and now it is not going to happen. In fact the member for Churchill River has tabled a compromise, an amendment, that the government should accept.

The committee said as part of Group No. 4 that the government must consult with the provinces and the territories. That is what the committee said.

These are species at risk. These are endangered species. What is co-operative federalism if not discussing these very issues with the provinces and territories that it serves? That came from the committee. What a great idea. Let us actually sit down and talk to the provinces that have legislation with respect to endangered species. Let us sit down and talk to the territories that know more about their property and the endangered species of their particular areas.

We just talked about an orchid in Manitoba which I was not aware of. Who better to know about that orchid than the member from the province of Manitoba? Is it not a good idea that the government have co-operative federalism and talk to provinces and territories? Guess what? The committee felt that it was. However, when it came forward the minister felt that it was not necessary. The government decided it did not have to talk to the provinces and territories and it should not have that co-operation in the legislation.

Bill C-5 has other deficiencies. One of the major deficiencies is the issue of compensation. The Canadian Real Estate Association was on Parliament Hill today and yesterday. Believe it or not it had three issues that it wanted to talk about. One of the issues was species at risk act. Is it not rather strange that a real estate association would want to speak to species at risk? It spoke to the same issue that the hon. member for Fundy--Royal spoke to with respect to the legislation. It spoke to the fact that there should be compensation built into the legislation for property owners. There should be a compensation built into the legislation for people who will be affected by species at risk.

Why did it not happen? Because the government changed it. Now, unfortunately, the government is under no obligation to provide a compensation package unless of course the circumstance is an extraordinary one. That is a bit of an interpretation. Who will interpret what extraordinary is? Who will interpret if in fact there should be an obligation to that particular landowner with respect to species at risk? The courts will have a heyday. At this point in time the government is off the hook because it could let this thing run for years if in fact there even is a legitimate requirement for compensation from one of these circumstances.

The legislation could have been supported and passed. Unfortunately the way it is right now the amendments that have been brought forward in Group No. 4 cannot be agreed to by the Progressive Conservative Party. They cannot be agreed to by the majority of people on this side and I hope, for those people who are prepared to logically listen to the arguments on the government side, will not be supported by those members as well.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me no great pleasure to rise once again on Bill C-5. It is tragic that the potential of this place, and the respect I have always had for it having always been a student of politics, has come to this when it does not need to.

A good number of people on the government side, perhaps not for the same reason, also see it as a bad piece of legislation. Here we are repeatedly expressing the same concerns over and over again because that is the only tool that is available to us.

I have been here for nine years. It is not long compared to some people, and certainly not long compared to the hon. member for Davenport who chairs the committee and who also has real concerns about the bill. I have always thought we could produce so much better legislation if we were to allow the committee to have a topic for a bill before it is introduced in the House. The all party committee would access the most expert opinions on any number of topics from anywhere in the world to develop and introduce a bill that would reflect the desires and the intentions of all parties in the House.

It seems so logical to me that after 130-some years in this place that would be the process we would have achieved to give a meaningful role not only to the ministers of the government, but to all members in the House and to all members of the various committees.

I do not understand the government. It gave the bill to the committee for some nine months and various members of the committee introduced some 300 amendments. There was some real co-operation and compromise in committee to come to a unanimous report. Then the minister, and therefore the government on instruction from the minister, turned around and rejected all the work that went into the committee report. I do not know whether that was a lack of confidence in the work of the committee by the minister or whether that was a power play by the bureaucrats who draft these bills and cannot stand to see anybody change the bill that they intended by introducing amendments.

It is a process that is severely flawed and could be so much better and more productive in this place. To engage in this kind of endless filibustering is frustrating and a non-productive use of our time.

The other concern I have with the bill is that of a landowner and a rancher which I have been all my life. Both my wife and I have always been proud to be raised on the farm. We decided we wanted to have a ranch, to raise animals and raise our family in that environment. We have always considered ourselves pretty dedicated stewards of the land and protectors of the environment and the species that live in that environment. We always had a dream to do that. Over the years that dream has been somewhat altered because of the economic realities of agriculture today and the modest living that we are allowed to get out of that enterprise.

It makes me quite angry that for some 40 years or better of my life I worked in all parts around the globe to sustain a dream of being a landowner and rancher and then see the government abuse its power, to be able to take that dream away from me without compensation. I find that difficult and arrogant.

From that perspective it upsets me. It upsets me that there are people in this place, and in the country, who are so arrogant that they think they can change a process that has been going on this planet for millions of years. Species have been adapting and evolving. Climate has been changing and forcing the adaptation and evolution of species for as long as the planet has existed and it will continue for another million years. Certainly we have a responsibility as human beings to do everything we can on the planet to mitigate our influence on the planet but to think that we can actually halt or reverse that process is arrogant beyond belief. It is hard to understand how we can do that.

I will address some of the concerns of the bill. I recently received a letter as a result of an obvious and unexplainable flip-flop and change in direction by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association from a position opposing the bill to a position supporting the bill. The letter was from a fellow rancher who, instead of engaging in work in the oil field as I did to support my habit of ranching, became a lawyer so he could be a rancher. He is the director of the Western Stock Growers' Association. He expressed his concern with the decision of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to change its position on the bill by saying:

We believe the vast majority of those persons involved in raising cattle in Canada would not support a law which would allow their federal government to confiscate their land without fair compensation under the guise of protecting habitat (their land) of a species at risk; as well as the other issues addressed in the fact sheet faxed herein.

I agree with him. I do not know what in the world was offered to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association to convince it to change its mind. It is beyond belief. I was a member of that organization for many years. Certainly in the decision it made it is not doing the job that it was elected to do in representing the interests of cattle owners.

One of the other aspects of the bill that strikes terror in my heart, and it should strike terror in the hearts of most people, is the fact that for even unintended violations of the bill a landowner could face extremely severe penalties under the law, up to a million dollars and five years in jail.

Most landowners make a modest living from the land for the work they do. To be forced into a situation where they must defend themselves through the legal system against that kind of penalty should strike fear into the hearts of those people because very few of those people engaged in farming and ranching have the resources to defend themselves against the Government of Canada and against this kind of charge.

It would literally destroy them, bankrupt them and take away the livelihood that they had worked hard to put in place for themselves. That alone should make members think differently. Landowners do not have the same privileges as members of the House whose legal defence bills are picked up by the taxpayers of Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It being 5.41 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.