Mr. Speaker, the bill to which my hon. colleague referred was introduced as Bill C-65 several years ago. I was not here then but I have heard members debating the issues referred to by my hon. colleague.
First, with respect to scientific knowledge, there is absolutely no question that under the bill the entrenchment of COSEWIC, which consists of scientists who would gain their legitimacy not only through the legislation but through the council they sit on, would add a balanced, even-handed, measured, prudent and arm's length role to provide balance and accountability within government.
As I have made clear, the balancing act would be important. The concept of delegation which has been used on occasion could not be exercised in an ad hoc manner. The House could not delegate away its responsibility under the act. Nor should it. It would be accountable for checks and balances in the system and for doing what is right for the sustainability of our natural environment.
Second, the input of first nations has been built into the act. Bill C-5 would establish a legitimate advisory board to take into consideration aboriginal people's historic knowledge and understanding of the environment.
Third, compensation is probably the most difficult issue the committee grappled with. I congratulate its members for doing so. It was my first experience of seeing the cut and thrust of genuine debate in an attempt to find consensus on issues.
The compensation regime would be experience based. In this sense it would break new ground. It would attempt to emphasize the concept of stewardship in a manner that did not require the expropriation of lands or rights. It would develop partnerships with those who would be affected because they too have a natural legacy we all wish to preserve.
We will go through the bill carefully rather than in an arbitrary manner. We will learn from our experience and build a regime that is fair, balanced, measured and guarantees a sustainable future for our natural environment.