Debates of June 11th, 2002

Question No. 160

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

In accordance with CBC policy, CBC will not provide the information requested in order to protect its autonomy, maintain confidentiality and protect its competitive position. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is required to provide a significant level of detail on its finances and operations to the public through parliament. The corporation also maintains high standards in procurement policies and practices. Its books are audited by the Auditor General of Canada and the information requested would have formed part of the information examined by the auditor general in any given year.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Species At Risk Act

[David Anderson, Liberal, Minister of the Environment]

moved that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House with great pleasure to talk I trust for the final time to Bill C-5.

The level of support for national legislation to protect endangered species is extensive. Canadians from coast to coast to coast believe that no species should become extinct simply because of human behaviour.

The proposed species at risk act, Bill C-5, is an effective and well informed response to their concerns. It is designed not only to ensure that species at risk and their habitat are protected but also to help in their recovery.

Passing the legislation to protect species at risk in Canada has been an important commitment of this government, and I am very proud to stand in the House today and reflect on that achievement.

We have worked for many years to achieve the broad support among Canadians that the legislation now enjoys. We consulted extensively. We listened. The nearly nine years that underlie the bill have been a cumulative process that has built a progressively informed piece of public policy.

We held more than 150 consultations with provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal people and stakeholders. We talked and learned from Canadians from all walks of life: fishermen, farmers, ranchers, resource industry owners and workers, and conservationists.

We have discussed, studied and refined, and we are now ready to move forward with policy solutions that will work for Canada.

Climate, nature and wildlife are integral to our Canadian identity but let us not underestimate the challenges inherent in protecting and fostering the recovery of species. We have in Canada some 70,000 known species and perhaps we have just as many which are not yet named. We are the world's second largest country with the world's longest coastline. We represent the northern most range for many species.

The challenge is complex and the responsibility under our constitution is shared.

The Government of Canada is working with all Canadians to ensure that this identity is preserved for future generations. Our strategy for the protection of species at risk is already a success. This strategy includes the legislation under consideration in addition to a national stewardship program and the accord for the protection of species at risk, an agreement between the federal government and all of the provinces and territories.

This legislative measure was designed to meet the federal responsibilities under the accord. The other jurisdictions have their role to play, and it is a very important role.

In fact, what we have here is an important extension to the work being done by other levels of government. This legislation is based on a partnership approach adopted by the provinces and territories. It strengthens an approach that originated in Canada.

The Species at Risk Act is an act that is balanced and appropriate for Canada. It is, above all, an act that will effectively protect species at risk and their habitat. It emphasizes an approach based on co-operation, which respects the constitutional spirit of our country.

The bill also reflects the geographic reality of our country. One of the key challenges that we have faced is that of ensuring that the legislation meets the needs of each of the 233 species that are currently included on the schedule of the bill and any other species which may be added under the act.

The needs of the whooping crane are different from the needs of the Atlantic whitefish, the wolverine or the eastern prickly pear cactus. Yet we have here one law that will protect each of these specie. We are passing a law that will be flexible enough to meet the needs of any endangered species, be it bird, fish, an animal or a plant. It is also flexible enough to enlist the participation of private landowners, aboriginal peoples, farmers, fishermen, trappers, industry, resource industry and all the provinces and territories.

Finally, the law must ensure that each species will receive the government's attention and that decisions will be made in a transparent, accountable and timely way.

Bill C-5 meets those criteria. It emphasizes the co-operative approach. It respects jurisdictions. It contains workable and effective solutions for the assessment and listing of species and for protection of critical habitat. It ensures that decisions will be based on the best knowledge available. It compels the government to be open, transparent and accountable for the decisions that are made and that those decisions will be based on science.

I want to address a few of the key issues raised during the debate. The first is that of assessment and listing. There are a number of precedents in the bill. One of the most compelling is the rigorous, independent process it will set in place for assessment. It will not be up to the minister of the day, myself or my successors, to determine whether he or she will allow COSEWIC to exist. Bill C-5 establishes COSEWIC, the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada, as a separate legal entity.

The assessment of species at risk will be based on the best available knowledge, both scientific and, again a first, aboriginal traditional knowledge. It will be expert and it will be independent. Those assessments will be done at arm's length from government and they will not be subject to any economic or social pressures. I will come back to that point because it is an important one.

Finally, the COSEWIC decisions and findings will be published in a public registry for all to see.

Bill C-5 ensures that as soon as a species is added to the legal list a number of binding provisions kick in. The species at risk bill contains, for example, automatic prohibitions against the killing or harming of the listed species and against the destruction of their residences. It also stipulates that mandatory recovery plans be put in place within specific timeframes.

Finally, the species at risk bill provides authority to take emergency action to protect habitat if those recovery plans do not prove effective.

We all understand the implications of assessment and listing are serious. They involve potential economic and social consequences that are well outside the purview of the scientists involved. For that reason, the elected representatives of government must make the final decision on what constitutes the legal list.

Our government has been unequivocal on this and has been since the very beginning. That is because the work of the committee on endangered species in Canada will not just sit there. There are binding timelines for the development of ministerial responses to a COSEWIC assessment, and hat must happen within 90 days, three months.

As well, we have guaranteed with a successful government motion that the government of the day will make a decision to list a species or not within nine months of receiving the COSEWIC assessment. That ensures that each species will receive the attention of the government, be it the most charismatic of species or the least recognizable.

It will ensure timely consideration of each species based on the best available knowledge. In addition, every year the minister will report to parliament on each of the COSEWIC assessments and on the government's response to them. This is an independent science based framework. It is fair and is there for the listing of endangered species where there is transparency and accountability.

Under clause 80, Bill C-5 also provides that the minister must make the recommendation to make an emergency order to protect the species or habitat if he or she is of the opinion that the species faces imminent threats to its survival or recovery. This clause applies to all species, regardless of where they are. It clearly requires the federal government to take action to protect all species at risk in Canada.

These prohibitions may well have a social and economic impact on local communities. This is why, while scientists will continue to determine the scientific listings, final authority regarding the addition of these listings to the legal list requiring recovery measures must remain in the hands of elected officials.

Canadians expect that the decisions affecting their lives and their means of livelihood will be made by the people whom they elected as their representatives. We cannot put the responsibility of making difficult decisions on the shoulders of non-elected scientists. We must keep the scientific and political processes separate.

In case people doubt that we will not act on the COSEWIC recommendations may I suggest they look at schedule 1 of the bill. There they will find 233 species already listed, each and every one of the species that COSEWIC had assessed by the end of the year 2001 against its new updated criteria.

In making a listing recommendation the environment minister can only consider the species. In making the decision to bring in an emergency order the government would consider the welfare of the species as well as all other factors affecting the situation and that is a responsibility of government. Canadians who feel they would be unfairly impacted by an emergency order should have the right to have their voices heard by elected officials. By making those elected officials responsible for decisions that could have social and economic impacts Bill C-5 would continue to ensure public accountability.

Let me also put to rest the issue of compensation. I know there are concerns by landowners regarding compensation. People have asked how we will deal with the implications of recovery efforts for people whose lands might be affected by those efforts.

There would be two stages: first, we would work with landowners through an extensive set of stewardship programs that would bring together scientists, government officials and local individuals in willing partnerships for the protection of species at risk.

Second, we are working on general compensation regulations that would get us started on this track if needed. Those regulations would set out the procedures for compensation claims arising from the imposition of regulations to prevent the destruction of critical habitat. We would address claims on a case by case basis.

Some individuals want more than that. Fair enough. They want details, processes, mechanics and a fully developed system. I understand that desire, but this is one of those cases where we must move intelligently and practically. That means getting some real life experience with the working of the act.

Canada must build up that real time experience in implementing the stewardship and the recovery provisions of the species at risk act. We must work our way through the issues that will arise in addressing the issue of compensation.

That experience would help us develop precise and detailed regulations on questions including eligibility and amounts over time. It would also be complemented by thorough consultation with everyone who has a stake in building a system that works for species at risk, for the people and of course for the country.

There would be no gap for assistance and support to landowners while we gain this experience. Already the government's habitat stewardship program is contributing some $10 million annually to community stewardship projects. These projects include: assisting fishermen on the Atlantic in modifying their gill nets to prevent unintentional catch of loggerhead turtles, working with ranchers on the prairies to conserve burrowing owls, working with landowners and aboriginal people in British Columbia's south Okanagan to develop an ecosystem based approach to land stewardship, and working with the whale watching industry on all three of Canada's coasts to improve business practices to prevent harm to migrating whale species.

These government sponsored projects would encourage local action and would achieve on the ground and on the water results. We would build partnerships across the country that would lead the way for protecting Canada's wildlife and habitat.

The last issue that I want to discuss is the approach that is most likely to succeed, either co-operation or coercion. Do we want a bill based on enforcement or on trust?

We all agree that habitat is critical to the protection and recovery of species at risk. The question is: Will the federal government make, from the outset, an order to protect critical habitat, or will it work to support a voluntary measure based on co-operation to achieve this protection?

Let me explain why I believe that our approach should primarily be based on co-operation.

I mentioned from the outset that we heard a great diversity of views on the best way to protect species at risk.

We then made choices based on what we had heard and on the experience of other jurisdictions, particularly the United States.

The most important decision was probably to give priority to co-operation and stewardship. We want to protect species at risk by encouraging landowners to take voluntary conservation measures to protect habitat and support biodiversity. In so doing, we will get results through partnerships all across Canada.

Throughout this consultation and review process, we tried to reconcile the advice of scientists and the experience and concerns of landowners and users of the resources, so that the act will work in real life, and be effective in Canada.

The landowners and resource users of the country, the farmers, ranchers, fishermen, trappers, people who work in the woods and those I have referred to a number of times want to know where endangered species live and what activities can harm them. They want to be included in plans to protect and recover species.

These are the persons most capable of protecting endangered species that might be found on lands they work on or own. Private landowners do not want to be told by government what they can do without their consultation. They want to be part of the solution. I think we can all agree that their participation would make our solutions much more effective. That is why we have consistently put the co-operative approach first. It is why we reject the United States model that has been proposed so frequently by the Alliance.

Further, and this cannot be emphasized too strongly, the approach we have taken is entirely consistent with the Canadian constitution and the Canadian way. It would actively involve those who may be affected by recovery planning: landowners and resource users. It would build on the partnership approach agreed to by the provinces and territories under the federal-provincial Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.

Let us remember that the vast majority of lands in Canada are under provincial and territorial management or private ownership. Provinces and territories are responsible for protecting species at risk and their habitats within their jurisdictions. Each province and territory recognized this responsibility and committed to fulfilling it when the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk was signed in 1996.

Bill C-5 is consistent with the co-operative approach of the accord. Through the accord governments have committed to co-ordination, complementary action and inclusion so that wildlife in Canada will be protected regardless of where it exists.

In the hypothetical scenario where a provincial or territorial government is unable to protect or does not protect a listed species at risk or its critical habitat, Bill C-5 would give the federal government the authority to do so. This is the safety net approach of Bill C-5. It would ensure no species at risk in Canada would be allowed to fall through the cracks.

I will conclude by summarizing the ways in which Bill C-5, unlike so many laws elsewhere in the world, would be effective. First, the level of science advice built into the conservation framework would be unprecedented anywhere. The species at risk act would recognize the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as a legal entity. It would mandate action based on the best scientific advice available as well as traditional aboriginal knowledge.

Second, our approach would be based on co-operation, not coercion. It would build on existing partnerships with provinces, territories, landowners and land stewards. It would recognize in the law the important role played by aboriginal peoples.

Third, the bill would ensure transparency and public accountability. It would commit the government to openness. The online public registry would demonstrate that the Government of Canada had transparency built in. It would enable anyone to track government actions with respect to species found to be at risk following the scientific assessment of the COSEWIC committee. A similar tool in the recently approved Canadian Environmental Protection Act has been a great success.

Fourth, there would be authority to use prohibitions against destroying critical habitat if other approaches did not work.

Fifth, proclamation of the act would trigger immediate action. On the day the bill became law the statutory obligations would apply to all 233 species already on schedule 1. From day 1, 233 species at risk across Canada would have legal protection. Recovery strategies or management plans for all those species would proceed.

Mr. Speaker, in five years time when you and I are once more discussing the bill as it come up for its five year review, we will find it has made a real difference. We will find Canada's wildlife more abundant and better protected.

If we are serious about protection and recovery we need to make sure everyone in the country who wants to play a role is able to. If we are serious about protection and recovery we must act now.

[Bob Mills, Canadian Alliance, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to third reading of Bill C-5, the government's endangered species legislation or, I should say, the latest version of it since we all know it has been underway since 1993.

This should be a positive day for people concerned with environmental issues because action to protect species at risk and their habitats is long overdue. However I cannot celebrate this bill. I would like to but I cannot. It contains so many glaring faults and fundamental mistakes that it would be unworkable. It would do precious little to help protect Canada's invaluable biological diversity.

Because the government did not give serious consideration to our amendments, I regret to say that we in the Canadian Alliance will be strongly opposing the bill. We tried to produce species at risk legislation that would work but the government has reversed the hard work of the committee. We must therefore oppose the bill. The Canadian Alliance wants species at risk legislation but it wants legislation that will work. The Alliance Party's 2002 policy declaration states:

We are committed to protecting and preserving Canada’s natural environment and endangered species, and to sustainable development of our abundant natural resources for the use of current and future generations.

The need is great. It is estimated that worldwide two to three species go extinct per hour almost entirely due to human causes. Some scientists believe we could lose 25% of the earth's species in the next 30 years at the present rate.

Canada has a serious endangered species problem. Some 27 species have gone extinct in Canada in the last 150 years and more than 300 are at risk. Some of our best known and loved neighbours who share the land such as the grizzly bear, beluga whale or woodland caribou could be lost to future generations unless we take action now.

Biological diversity is to be cherished. The wide range of species the world over provides a living laboratory for the development of new drugs and medicines. Endangered species are an important early warning system of ecological trouble. Protecting wild species protects billions of dollars in wildlife related activities across Canada and the livelihoods of countless Canadians. We know all this. The Canadian Alliance has done its part in trying to make strong, responsible endangered species legislation a reality.

I will take a moment to commend my hon. colleagues on the environment committee. Over the last year or so the committee has been a model of how the House works at its best. It has been a forum for reflection, discussion and an honest search for the best way forward. Some very constructive proposals have come out of it. There has been, in my experience at least, unprecedented co-operation at the committee between members of all parties. There has been a lot of negotiation and compromise. I have not seen such a level of co-operation since I was elected in 1993. Even the whips could not whip their members into changing their positions. However the government has reversed all that.

Bill C-5 has witnessed remarkable partnerships among groups outside parliament. People have managed to put aside their usual perspectives and work co-operatively in the cause of protecting endangered species. One of the best examples has been the Species at Risk Working Group or SARWG. How often have the Sierra Club, Canadian Wildlife Federation and Canadian Nature Federation had common cause with the pulp and paper industry, mining industry and so on? The fact that SARWG's members could agree on so much made their common position all the more compelling.

Had the government accepted more of SARWG's advice the bill would be far stronger today and might make a real difference. Instead the government has said “Trust us, we will fix it later”. I am sad to say this is how the Liberal government deals with things.

Despite all the goodwill and the extraordinary degree of consensus among industry and environmental commentators, Bill C-5 as amended would not go far enough. It would not pass the test of workability. When I read the amendments at report stage I was sad to see the government had undone many of the constructive changes that had been made. That is sad because we all want a workable law that will make a difference.

What is the problem? I will quote some fine words from the minister's appearance before the committee on October 3 of last year. He stated:

The front-line soldier of the campaign for endangered species will be the fisherman, the farmer, the person who works in the woods, or the trapper, to name only a few. These are the people who are out there where the habitat is and the endangered species are. If we want to succeed in the protection of habitat for species at risk, we need to maintain the support and cooperation of Canadians who work and live on the land and on our waters of Canada. And that is where the action is needed.

Truer words were never spoken, but perhaps the minister should introduce his speech writer to his legislative drafter. Bill C-5 would fail because it ignores the concerns, I would even say the fears, of those frontline soldiers. The minister is ignoring their concerns. He is refusing to commit that if and when they suffered economic losses because of the need to protect endangered species they would not have to carry the cross alone but would receive compensation. The minister is ignoring them by holding over their heads the threat of harsh criminal sanctions for unintentional or inadvertent actions.

As a strict matter of public policy the bill is wrong on these counts, but in terms of communications it could hardly be worse. It would send the signal that the real life concerns of these frontline soldiers were not significant. It would make them feel like targets of the government rather than partners in helping endangered species.

Finally, the bill would demean and insult 10 other frontline soldiers in the battle to save endangered species: the provinces of Canada. The minister can talk all he wants about co-operation, but at the end of the day he says he would decide whether the provinces were doing a good job of protecting endangered species and whether the federal law would apply in each province. There would be no negotiations or criteria, only uncertainty and resentment.

In the end Bill C-5 is a bad bill. It would not come to grips with the real lives of Canadians who want to do their part to protect wildlife and endangered species, Canadians who want to be responsible stewards of the natural environment but do not like being threatened or demeaned.

Sadly, in this respect Bill C-5 is part of a trend in the Liberal government's relationship with rural and northern Canada: the long gun registry which has ignored the realities of life outside our nation's cities; the cruelty to animals act which would criminalize run of the mill animal husbandry practices; and the Kyoto accord which threatens to impose significant costs on rural energy users. It is sad to say, but the message must get through to the Liberal government.

The minister's frontline soldiers throughout rural Canada too often feel their way of life is what is endangered. They care about wildlife. They are not selfish. They are responsible people who want to protect the environment and had been doing so for generations before the government decided to intervene. An approach based on partnership rather than confrontation would be met with a lot more success.

The biggest flaw in the species at risk act, the thing that guarantees it would never be effective, is its failure to provide compensation to landowners who would suffer economic losses as a result of measures to protect species and their habitats. The word compensation sounds so grasping, selfish and un-Canadian. Why would people expect to be paid for obeying the law? Why should property owners not be willing to absorb the costs in the service of a greater social good?

When people's livelihoods are at stake they have a different view of things. Farmers might have to leave certain sections of land untouched for a number of years or adopt different practices to accommodate nesting birds. Maybe areas of a forest would be off limits during migration. There are lots of ways property owners and resource users could be affected, some temporary and some permanent. However in many cases they would face costs either in the form of lost income from not being able to use their land or actual costs for protecting habitat or providing for endangered species.

It is completely incorrect to think farmers are sitting there waiting for the government to put compensation in the bill so they can sell their land to the government and make a big profit. Listening to the minister talk about how compensation would prevent voluntary programs, one would think this was what he believed.

For the farmers and ranchers I know their land is their life. Often it has been in their families for generations and they are not looking for an easy way out or to sell it to the government. They respect the wildlife on their property and would be happy to work co-operatively in voluntary stewardship programs, but when costs arise they do not want to be left holding the bag alone. Ten per cent could easily put them out of business.

No doubt the minister will say that the bill recognizes the principle of compensation. Let us look at the bill. Yes, it does say that the minister may, and I emphasize may, provide compensation. That is good. The government even seems willing to retain the words of the committee, “fair and reasonable” compensation, but that is not fair market value. However, in Bill C-5 any compensation would be left entirely to the minister's discretion. For the farmers in my riding, fine words are hollow promises. Until property owners and resource users know that when they suffer losses they will be guaranteed compensation, not by the minister's good grace but by right, they will look at the species at risk act with one hand guarding their wallets.

It would have been a token of good faith had the minister tabled draft regulations for us to look at prior to the bill being passed. He has promised to have a draft ready soon after royal assent, but again that does not do anything to convince people that the act will be fair to them.

What can they expect? What in practice does the bill mean when it says there will be compensation only in the case of the “extraordinary” impact of regulatory restrictions? Can they trust that the process would be fair? The minister owes Canadians answers to questions like this.

In fact, the only public picture of what regulations might look like is the Pearse report. Dr. Pearse may be a noted natural resources economist, but when he says that landowners should be happy to lose up to 10% of their annual income without compensation in order to protect endangered species, property owners get worried. When he says they should get a maximum of 50% compensation for losses over 10%, they stay worried.

It is not because the minister's “frontline soldiers” are selfish but because, like many Canadians, they work hard for a living and want to be treated fairly. Fairness demands that when they are injuriously affected by government they receive something to help them out. This is the very principle embodied in the UN convention on biological diversity, which Canada has signed.

The convention recognizes that because the objective of maintaining bio- and ecosystem diversity is so important, costs must be equitably borne by everyone, not just primarily by developing countries. Applied at home, this principle would mean that landowners should not bear all the costs of species protection, and that since they are helping to achieve a greater social good, compensation should be extended to offset any losses that they might incur.

The species at risk working group also recognized this in their brief to the standing committee. The group wrote:

SARWG strongly urges Parliament to implement key amendments that firmly recognize that the protection of species at risk is a public value and that measures to protect species at risk should be equitably shared and not unfairly borne by any individual, group of landowners, workers, communities or organizations...Provision for compensation helps to balance the effect of efforts to protect species at risk and instills necessary trust among all stakeholders...The Act should specifically allow for compensation for unavoidable losses caused by the inability to carry on an activity that is authorized by a legal contract or licence.

If a committee of industry and environmental groups can recognize this, then why can the government not? The principle of compensation is recognized internationally too. Let me quote from threatened species legislation in Tasmania:

A landholder...is entitled to compensation for financial loss suffered as a natural direct and reasonable consequence of the making of an interim conservation order.

That is, there is compensation for an interim protection order or a land management agreement.

The legislation also states: “A person who is required to comply with a notice under section 36 is entitled to compensation for financial loss” as a result of “being required to comply with that notice”.

Within the European Community, landowners receive compensation if they agree via a management agreement to maintain features of the landscape. Switzerland runs the integrated production program, a voluntary scheme whereby farmers are given standard amounts based on profit forgone in return for agreeing to certain restrictions. The U.K.'s conservation program of 1994 states:

Where a special nature conservation order is made, the appropriate nature conservation body shall pay compensation to any person having at the time of the making of the order an interest in land comprised in an agricultural unit comprising land to which the order relates who...shows that the value of his interest is less than it would have been if the order had not been made.

Not only is it fair, but the prospect of paying compensation introduces important fiscal discipline for the government. Instead, the government has taken the U.S. example of no compensation. I take the minister at his word and so I know that at the moment the government really has no idea of what the implications of the bill are or what it will cost Canadians to comply. Here is what he told the committee on October 3 when asked about compensation:

I have to express my regret that I'm not able to give the precision you have asked for. I think, though, your request for precision is perfectly legitimate. I really would like to be able to give it. Unfortunately, it simply has proved to be one of those things that has escaped us.

In reality, there is a letter from a cabinet minister to another cabinet minister saying that there can be no compensation in the bill, and nothing has been allocated. A departmental information supplement distributed in October was not of much more help when it stated:

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...before we can be precise in prescribing eligibility and thresholds for compensation.

In other words, it is “trust us”. I guess it is easy to be this flippant when spending someone else's money. The government does not know what the economic implications will be of the legislation it is passing. The act would put a potential burden on countless property owners and users across the country. The minister is advised to have a better answer for them when they start asking why all the costs of this noble effort seem to be on their shoulders.

In the end, the best argument in favour of compensation is that it is best for endangered species themselves. Without some recognition of their costs and corporate willingness to assist, property owners and users end up in an adversarial relationship with endangered species when naturally they are their best defenders.

The wolves in Yellowstone National Park are a great example of how this works in practice. When ecologists reintroduced wolves in the park they naturally received a hostile reaction from local ranchers who rightly were afraid that wolves would prey upon their livestock. Why, they asked, should they have to pay the cost of wolf introduction? According to Hank Fischer, northern Rockies representative of the Defenders of Wildlife, the controversy was resolved by starting a non-governmental compensation fund for ranchers, which paid a flat fee for each head of livestock killed by wolves. Now, five years later, the wolf population is growing and farmers have for the most part learned to live with it since they know that their families' prosperity is not being sacrificed. As Mr. Fischer writes, “This program is about a lot more than money. It's about respecting what ranchers do”.

Maybe that is the key point. Landowners are more than willing to do their part, but they need to know that the government understands their situation and cares about what happens to them. If the government cannot even provide some measure of compensation for their losses then they will be far less willing to co-operate on a voluntary basis. Coercion will be the government's only option, which will only increase resentment and suspicion. If property owners are upset about being asked to carry all the costs of protecting endangered species with no guarantee of assistance in doing so, they should be equally concerned about the harsh criminal sanctions that the government is using to make sure they co-operate.

Bill C-5 makes it a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of hundreds of endangered species or to interfere with their critical habitat. Fines are steep, up to $1 million for a corporation and $250,000 for an individual. The bill provides for imprisonment for up to five years for an indictable offence. As far as I am concerned that punishment is too good for people who wilfully threaten endangered species, people such as poachers, those who traffic in endangered animals or hunters looking for a thrill, but let us look at the bill.

The bill states:

No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a wildlife species that is listed as an extirpated species, an endangered species or a threatened species--

Similarly, it states:

No person shall damage or destroy the residence--

of that species, or:

No person shall destroy any part of the critical habitat of a listed endangered species--

Protecting species and their residences and habitat is what the bill is all about and we support that. My concern is that the act would have the great potential to catch honest people in its net, people who have no intention to harm endangered species, let alone commit a criminal offence. Under this act someone could commit a criminal offence, not a misdemeanor or administrative violation but a criminal offence, without knowing it. The bill does not require intent or even reckless behaviour. Rather, all offences under the act would be strict liability offences which means that the burden of proof rests on the individual to prove that he or she was exercising due diligence should harm come to an endangered species.

Is it fair to convict someone of a serious criminal offence when they might have had no idea that they were endangering a species or its habitat? In order to protect oneself from breaking the law, one would have to become an expert on recognizing the sage grouse, the barn owl, the Aurora trout, the Atlantic salmon, the prairie lupine and the American water willow, et cetera. One would have to be able to recognize not only them but their critical habitat in case one disturbs a place where some of these animals spend part of their life cycle, or even where they used to live or might be reintroduced, or some pollen or seeds blew in. I dare say the minister knows that this is a true problem.

In October he spoke to the committee about making people criminals even when they do not know they are breaking the law. He had a lot of concerns. He said:

It's a legitimate matter for concern. The accident, the unwitting destruction—it is a concern, and we want to give the maximum protection we can to the legitimate and honest person who makes a mistake, who unwittingly does that.

That is a nice thought, but that is all it is.

What is this maximum protection that he talked about? There is no protection that I can see. Protecting endangered species is important and we take it seriously, but it cannot be done in a heavy-handed way. People want to co-operate, but this “gotcha” approach from the government is adversarial and does nothing to encourage co-operation. A person might not know he or she was harming an endangered species, but “gotcha”. All they can hope is that the minister is reasonable in exercising his discretion. “Trust me” he says. That is not good enough.

How are companies, for example those involved with mineral, oil or forestry, supposed to demonstrate due diligence over operations covering hundreds of thousands or even millions of hectares when they do not even control all the external factors involved? There are 70 million hectares of agricultural land and 25 million hectares of privately owned forest land in Canada. How do these farmers and operators exercise due diligence over these areas, especially when many are small operators with very limited resources and no familiarity with endangered species?

What maximum protection would the minister provide to them? At the very least, the government must work with the provinces to provide training for landowners and users who will be required to meet the due diligence standards but do not have the knowledge or information to identify listed species or their critical habitat and residences.

As the species at risk working group said:

Failure to make such programs readily available will deprive Canadians of the means to defend themselves against criminal charges.

The best solution would be for the government to amend the bill to require what Roman law used to refer to as the guilty mind, mens rea. This required that in order to commit a criminal act persons had to know that they were doing something wrong. It has been the standard division between criminal and civil offences in English common law since the late Middle Ages and is absolutely essential in this case. The bill should require that criminal sanctions apply only when someone knowingly, intentionally, wilfully or even recklessly harms an endangered species, its residence or its habitat.

Why make this change? Do the strong penalties not send a signal that endangered species are important and that no one should mess with them? Yes, it does that but that is the wrong signal for farmers, cattlemen, fishermen, forestry workers, property owners and users across the country.

The minister does not seem to understand the implication of his own words when he calls these people his frontline soldiers in the campaign for endangered species. Property owners are the good guys here yet the bill treats them as if they have to be beaten into submission and threatened to keep them from harming wildlife. Let me quote the minister once more:

Now we have all seen, as politicians, what happens when people get fearful or angry with their government. We have all seen the damage that is done to public trust when perfectly reasonable people suddenly decide that the government has some hidden and nefarious agenda, and there is no reason to stir up those kinds of concerns with this legislation.

The minister's speech writer is absolutely correct. There is no reason for this to happen but it is because Bill C-5 treats property owners in a spirit of confrontation and antagonism. If the government is willing to brand people as criminals for an entirely inadvertent act, then people will question the government's commitment to its rhetoric about co-operation.

As I said earlier, the bill also insults and demeans another group of frontline soldiers in the battle to protect endangered species. Those soldiers are the provincial governments. I know it is not fashionable to defend the provinces in this place. The government obviously believes, and it may even be true, that Canadians generally do not care who delivers a service or takes responsibility for an issue, they just want it done. We want to see endangered species protected, but even if people do not widely care about constitutional niceties, it is vital that governments respect them. Perhaps the government can get away with encroaching on provincial jurisdiction in the court of public opinion. In the only survey I have seen, 94% of Canadians say that they want to protect endangered species. I cannot believe it is not 100%. However, if it tries to go it alone, the government will produce bad policy, bad legislation and will end up hurting rather than helping the cause of species protection, which it seeks to advance.

I do not want to pretend that the federal government has no jurisdiction at all in getting involved in environmental issues and protecting endangered species. Environment, after all, does not fall exclusively into either federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Fathers of Confederation thought far more about regulating trade, commerce, education and even how to divide up the colony's debts than they did about protecting endangered species, but the federal government clearly has a role to play.

Section 91 of the constitution gives the federal government power in the areas of international treaties, Indians and land reserved for Indians, sea coast and inland fisheries. One could even, I suppose, make a case that the power to guarantee peace, order and good governance allows the federal government an entry here, though that is sufficiently ill-defined as a justification. I am sure it will be fought out in the courts.

Perhaps the best justification for the federal role is responsibility for the criminal law. This power to prohibit and punish any conduct clearly would extend to protecting endangered species, though I cannot help but wonder whether the harsh criminal provisions in the bill and the refusal to require that someone have criminal intent exists more because they strengthen the federal government's self-jurisdiction for involvement than because of how effective they will be.

The provinces have a role to play because the constitution gives them power over: the management and sale of public lands belonging to the province; property and civil rights; and matters of merely local or private nature in the province. Together these amount to vast responsibilities. The provinces are the ones with the troops on the ground, with the power to really enforce the provisions of the act. They have a presence to enforce natural resources and wildlife rules that extend widely across the nation.

Apart from the jurisdictional question, without the provinces the bill simply cannot be enforced. It is essential for the minister to make sure he has the provinces on side or his best laid plans will not have their desired effect.

Does the bill reflect the co-operation and consensus building that one would expect, given that environmental questions are a shared responsibility? Sadly, the answer is a strong no. The bill talks about co-operation, voluntary programs and consultation but when it comes right down to it, Bill C-5 gives the federal government the power to impose its will on provincial lands with disregard for provincial rules or practices.

This is the concept of the safety net. Largely through use of federal criminal law power, Bill C-5 gives the minister, in his absolute discretion, the right to decide whether a province provides effective protection for endangered species. If not, then he must order that the federal law will apply in every province. In this way he is given the power to sit as lord and judge over the provinces.

The standing committee insisted that the minister be required to make his reasons public. Most important, the committee required that the minister consult with the provinces in order to develop criteria for determining what constitutes effective protection of species at risk throughout Canada. However the government introduced motions to reverse these provisions.

We are left with a situation where provinces, landowners and resource users will try to arrange their affairs to comply with the law in good faith but with utter uncertainty about what the law will be. That is where the money will be used, in litigation. How are companies expected to invest or individuals develop their land if they do not know what the rules will be? This uncertainty leads to confusion and distrust. This federal intrusion will almost certainly lead to legal challenges from the provinces instead of focus on protection of species at risk.

Undoubtedly, provinces will challenge these provisions in court. Not only will this take time and resources, it will undermine collective efforts to protect species and show the world that Canada is not serious in its commitment to co-operate in meeting this important goal.

Of course all this talk of the federal safety net assumes that there are big gaps in the provincial legislation. It implies that the provinces have done nothing about endangered species protection and cannot be trusted with the job.

As I have said, I believe there is a role for the federal government here but this white knight attitude, which puts down everyone else so it can pretend to be the champion, only creates bitterness and sets back the cause of species protection.

I have been told that there are 33 provincial statutes that cover endangered species, wildlife, special places protection, environmental management and so on. They exist in every province and territory. I do not claim to be an expert on all of these but a background presentation by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund on Bill C-5 included a report card comparing the provinces to Bill C-33, the endangered species bill that died in the last parliament and provided the framework for this bill.

Interestingly, five provinces were ranked higher than the proposed federal law and three more provinces were given the same mark. This is a subjective assessment but at least it establishes that the provinces are doing something to help endangered species.

Instead of the government's confrontational approach, would it not be much better to work co-operatively to pursue the goals that we all endorse? The foundation for this co-operation already exists in the 1996 national accord for the protection of species at risk. The federal and provincial ministers committed themselves to complementary legislation and programs to ensure that endangered species would be protected throughout Canada and established a council of ministers to provide direction, report on progress and resolve disputes. This is the way to proceed. Perhaps it was not perfect. Certainly more work was left to do and federal legislation has a role here. Goodness knows, the federal government has enough land and responsibilities in its jurisdiction with which to concern itself without deciding to take responsibility for provincial lands too.

Again we urge the government to adopt a more co-operative approach instead of one rooted in the minister's discretion to intervene whenever he wants with no criteria and no explanation. That is not the way to build teamwork with provincial enforcement agents on the ground. It is not the way to work with landowners and resource users who need certainty and predictability in the law and, in the long run, it is not the way to help protect endangered species.

In conclusion, we want species at risk legislation but we want legislation that will work on the ground. This bill will not work. Farmers, ranchers and people in industry say it will not work. It is just like the U.S. legislation. It will end up in the courts. It does not include compensation. It does not include mens rea. It does not provide clear federal--provincial co-operation. It does not provide adequate habitat protection.

Money, as I say, will not be used for the conservation or protection of species. Instead it will go into the courtroom.

Government has used deceit and deception to convince various groups that they will be taken care of. It has used an attitude of “Trust us, we will take care of you. We will give you compensation. We will make sure that we work with you”.

I do not believe those bureaucrats who will be out there enforcing the legislation will do anything but follow the exact wording that is printed in Bill C-5. As a result, the legislation will in fact endanger endangered species.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in today's debate on Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act.

We are coming to the end of a long and difficult process during which, as the Canadian Alliance member pointed out, we reached a high level of consensus in committee. Unfortunately, the government across the way is acting in an arrogant and provocative manner and, in some ways, is not respecting the existing situation in Canada with respect to protection of species.

I am particularly pleased at the final remarks made by my Canadian Alliance colleague, because I am going to use them as the lead-in to my presentation. In my speech today opposing Bill C-5, I will be relying on two basic premises.

First, I will be basing my analysis on the 1996 accord on the protection of endangered species in Canada. This accord was based on co-operation and collaboration between governments in order to protect endangered species in Canada, as well as on complementarity.

I will cite two guiding principles for the protection of endangered species, by which the accord set out a new framework for co-operation—note that word co-operation—between the federal, provincial and territorial governments.

The first consists in creating a council of ministers, which will decide on the directions to follow, report on progress made and resolve disputes. The second principle—and this one is important—is part of the 1996 accord. Under this principle, governments agree to introduce regulations and complementary programs in order to guarantee that endangered species are protected throughout Canada.

I would emphasize the use of the word co-operation in the accord signed by the federal government, wherein it committed to introducing protective legislation in parliament. I would also emphasize the use of the word complementarity. Complementarity means that our governments will work together in their respective jurisdictions with respect for what others are doing.

However, this is not what we find in the bill, even as amended in committee, and even on the basis of the amendments we passed yesterday in the House of Commons.

The first thing I notice about this bill is that it ignores this accord and its provisions with respect to co-operation, collaboration and complementary policies.

The second is that we on this side of the House believe that habitat protection is a provincial responsibility. This has been the case throughout the study, both in committee and in the House, at all stages of the analysis of this bill, and this has guided us in our desire to improve the bill we are still dealing with here today. The reason we believe this is that it is part of the legitimate demands that have been made over the years by the various governments of Quebec.

I will remind hon. members that, on October 2, 1996, when the 1996 accord for the protection of species at risk was signed, the Quebec Minister of the Environment said the following:

We cannot remain indifferent to the fact that this agreement opens the door to overlap between the future federal legislation—

At that time, he was not referring to Bill C-5, since the bill we are addressing now did not exist at that time. Continuing:

—and the act that has been in force since 1989, an act that works well and has already proven useful.

In 1996, the Quebec environment minister said:

We risk creating more red tape instead of dedicating ourselves to what really matters to us: the fate of endangered species.

This was his assessment of the 1996 accord. Judging by the debate we are now having in this House, his forecast was right. As my colleague from the Canadian Alliance has said, the federal government has not respected its intentions and commitments as set out in the 1996 accord, which emphasizes co-operation, collaboration and complementarity between federal, provincial and territorial legislation and regulations.

Here we are faced with a bill that does not foster co-operation, but will instead provide the tools to a heavy handed government that believes that coercion is more effective than co-operation to ensure protection. We reject this premise, this approach and the federal government's model.

In connection with my statement that the second principle for analysis of this bill ought to be based on our belief that habitat protection is a provincial responsibility, I will quote another Quebec environment minister. On February 23, 1997, when Bill C-65 was introduced, the bill that has now become C-5, he said:

The new version of the bill ignores the situation in Quebec and the recommendations already made by other provinces to preserve species. This bill proposes nothing less than dual federal jurisdiction over the management of species found in Quebec and in the other provinces.

He added the following:

The government would grab jurisdiction over the habitats of the species that are already under its jurisdiction, such as aquatic species and migratory birds, although responsibility for habitats is already under provincial jurisdiction.

Over the past three, four or five years, the Quebec government has been saying that habitat protection is under provincial jurisdiction. However, under Bill C-5, the government opposite is assuming the power to take action on Quebec's territory. The government opposite does have a jurisdiction. It has full power and authority over crown land. It has full legitimacy to act on these lands, under the migratory birds convention.

However, it refuses to act and, instead of taking measures on federal land, it prefers to be more proactive on provincial land than on its own land. For example, there are no conservation officers in some national wildlife reserves. This fact was condemned by the environmental commissioner. This a glaring example. Some national reserves are recognized as heritage areas under the Ramsar convention and are being left unprotected by the federal government, which, with this bill, will be able, through a double safety net, to interfere in provincial jurisdictions.

This is mind-boggling. The government wants to establish an arrogant, pretentious and enforcement-based system that goes against the principles to which the provinces made a commitment in 1996.

If Quebec had not been proactive regarding the protection of habitats and species at risk, I could understand why the federal government would want to pass such a bill.

However, when we look at the situation in Quebec, this is not the case. I remind the House that Quebec, at every opportunity it has been given to respect international commitments made by Canada, has said it would do so. Allow me to mention three of four of these conventions: the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals and last, but not least, the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. This convention required governments to develop and maintain the legislative and regulatory provisions required for the protection of threatened species and populations.

The Government of Quebec, a few months after June 1992, had an order passed in the national assembly establishing that it would comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Quebec's desire to protect biodiversity is not only demonstrated by its compliance with conventions negotiated or ratified by the Government of Canada, but it is by the legislation it has passed. Not only is this desire demonstrated by its compliance with the Convention on Biological Diversity, but also by the fact that it took measures one year before the international consensus on this issue led to an international commitment.

Well before the Rio convention of 1992, Quebec passed its own legislation on endangered species. Back in 1989, the Government of Quebec had developed the tools and means to protect endangered species, with its act respecting threatened species, its act respecting the conservation of wildlife, and fishing regulations. Yet more than 12 years later, the federal government has still not even passed legislation to protect endangered species on crown lands under its jurisdiction, and just a few months remain before the earth summit in Johannesburg, ten years after Rio.

It is incomprehensible that a government, ten years after Rio, still has no federal convention and legislation to protect species at risk, and that a province like Quebec already had measures in place back in 1989. Today, the federal government would like to tell Quebec how to protect species at risk on Quebec's land. This bad faith runs counter to the principles of co-operation and collaboration. We are starting to think that the government would rather adopt a enforcement-based policy and model in Canada, which we do not need in Quebec.

Quebec has passed regulations and legislation to protect endangered species. This is the Quebec model for the protection of species, which is based on legislation passed 12 years ago. Of course, I would agree that the legislation is not perfect. But it existed 12 years before the legislation we are now considering. Legislation is made to be changed and improved. Regulatory changes can be made quickly. We know the process here in the House. The regulations are regularly amended in Quebec to improve the measures for the protection of species.

What does this legislation do in Quebec? It identifies species through an advisory committee composed of scientists. This committee has identified over 90 mammals, over 19 plants, over 330 birds, over 16 reptiles and over 198 fish in Quebec.

By means of this legislation passed 12 years ago, the Quebec model has made it possible to identify plants and animals. It also allows us to designate these species through legislation.

Twelve years ago, Quebec introduced a model for the introduction of recovery plans for endangered or threatened species.

Twelve years ago, Quebec was talking about recovery plans, which this House is just debating today. Why is that? How can a government tell a province what to do when we incorporated the principles of recovery plans in legislation passed 12 years ago. And yet the House of Commons is just now debating them? These are recovery plans provided for in the legislation.

There is also a system for enforcing the legislation. It is not enough just to pass laws. For years, Quebec has had within its jurisdiction wildlife protection officers, who are authorized to enforce its wildlife protection legislation.

Today the federal government wants to adopt a system involving enforcement by federal agents. We need to have this explained to us. What protocols for application and agreements are going to be adopted? There will be two police forces. If the federal government decides that, within Quebec, game reserves that fall under provincial jurisdiction, that is Quebec parks, species are not being properly protected, it can send its federal agents out on lands administered by the Government of Quebec.

This is an intrusion. This is not merely overlap, but direct intrusion into Quebec jurisdiction. There will be federal police with the ability to intervene on Quebec land, be it the Portneuf game sanctuary or a provincial park. I can assure hon. members that we will never accept this. Never. That is not what we committed to in 1996.

We committed to working in complementarity, in co-operation and in collaboration. There is no way an agent of the federal authority is coming onto our land. Coming onto private land is one thing, but when it comes to Quebec's game reserves under Quebec government administration, by SEPAC, the Société des établissements de plein air du Québec, there are limits.

As well, we equipped ourselves with a system of penalties for violators of Quebec's endangered species legislation. Not only do we have a statute and a regulatory process, we also have a strategy on biological diversity.

As far back as 1996, the Government of Quebec adopted a strategy on biological diversity. This strategy already set out the major objectives for the development of protected areas.

Its first objective was to increase the ecological knowledge necessary for the creation of a network to maintain quality and for the protection of vulnerable or threatened components of natural biodiversity.

Second, to establish and maintain a comprehensive and representative network of the protected areas necessary for the preservation of biological diversity.

Third, to strengthen the network of managed conservation areas so as to ensure the protection of biological diversity over a greater area.

So, we have not only laws and regulations, but also a strategy on biological diversity. We do not even stop there. We do not just have a strategy adopted in 1996. Just recently, Quebec has earmarked funds for its implementation.

I would simply like to remind members of the House that on January 24, 2002—only a few months ago—the Government of Quebec reached an agreement with a private organization in order to support a national network of protected areas on private lands. Conservation de la nature Québec and the Government of Quebec will spend $5 million over two years to acquire private lands with endangered species in the regions of the St. Lawrence River valley, the Outaouais, the Appalaches and the Gaspé Peninsula.

The agreement will provide for the acquisition of approximately 100 square kilometres, protecting some 150 different habitat.

So, Quebec is fulfilling its responsibilities when it comes to habitat protection. The investment made in January will allow for the protection of more than 150 different habitats, as I said. So we have legislation, we have regulations and we have a strategy. The Quebec model is very different.

Why are we opposed to today's bill? Are we opposed to federal legislation to protect endangered species? Absolutely not. Canada has no choice. Canada is even dragging its feet with respect to its international commitments. It is only because of its international commitments that it has no choice but to pass the Species at Risk Act.

But we think that it should be protecting species on crown lands and federal lands, in accordance with instruments such as the migratory birds convention. It should be protecting endangered species in Canada's national parks, and in national wildlife reserves. According to the recent report by the environmental commissioner, there is not enough funding to protect ecosystems in Canada's eight national wildlife reserves in Quebec and the ten in Ontario, and many habitats and species are threatened. One could even ask oneself just how proactive the federal government is when it comes to species on federal lands.

What we need is legislation that will apply to federal lands but respect Quebec's legislation to protect species on its own lands. That is why we are opposed to the double safety net in the bill. This is a ruse by the federal government to exceed its jurisdiction and to once again increase its presence in the provinces, but without sponsorships. Perhaps there will be sponsorships as well, but that is another debate.

In this debate, the government and the minister talk about co-operation, collaboration and complementarity, while we talk about duplication, overlap and interference.

The Bloc Quebecois' opposition is rooted in Quebec's traditional demands regarding the environment. We are defending the legislation passed by the National Assembly of Quebec. We are defending the Quebec model for the protection of endangered species and habitats. We are defending a law passed by the government of Robert Bourassa. We are defending a law passed by the members of a Liberal government in Quebec. It was not a separatist, sovereignist government but a nationalist government in Quebec City, whose members included the following members now sitting in this House: the member for Lac-Saint-Louis, the member for Westmount, who is the President of the Treasury Board, the member for Bonaventure--Gaspé--Îles-de-la-Madeleine--Pabok, the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, the member for Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, and the member for Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles.

Today, we are defending Quebec's traditional demands. Our opposition to Bill C-5 is as strong as the one expressed by the then Quebec minister of the environment, Pierre Paradis, when the federal government wanted to force down Quebec's throat its Canadian model for environmental assessment.

I see the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. He will remember that the then Quebec minister of the environment got really upset when the federal government wanted to pass the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Quebec dissociated itself from this process.

Today, the members of this House who supported the Quebec act would agree to adopt a bill that will set aside the Quebec legislation. I just do not understand.

In politics, consistency is one of the most fundamental criteria used by the public to judge politicians. Our opposition reflects the desire expressed in 1989 by the national assembly. Regardless of which the government passed the act at the time, we will defend our point of view, as did Pierre Paradis when he opposed the Canadian environmental assessment process. We will do so for species at risk and for Bill C-19, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, because we believe that we must protect species in Canada.

This is firm but considered support, based on the 1996 principles of co-operation, collaboration and complementarity.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I was elected I had a vision that when I would be making this address to the House at third reading we would have, as a total government, approached the bill with an environmental prism. We would have looked at the bill through that prism and as a government we would have said this is what the environment requires. We have a responsibility to future generations to protect endangered species not only for ourselves as a sovereign state but for the rest of the world.

I envisioned that we would have taken into account the crisis that we are faced with in this country with regard to endangered species. We now have approximately 400 species on the list and we know that list is nowhere near complete. We have heard testimony that it is much larger than that. I thought we would have acted in good conscience with the best interests of Canada and of endangered species.

I would have envisioned that we would have recognized the work that we did with the international community dating back to 1992 when we were the first country to sign on to the protocol after the earth summit. It required us as a sovereign nation to protect the species and biodiversity of Canada for ourselves and the rest of the world; and to use that as a guiding principle. We would have taken into account the overwhelming support in this country for strong, effective legislation to protect endangered species.

I would have expected that I would be standing here saying, yes, we did all those things. We did take into account, would have been my thinking, the interests in the country including the provincial governments, the rights of the first nations, aboriginal communities and the Metis, to self-government and control of their land and their land claims as they exist now, as well as the interests of private owners of land and users of land. We would have taken them into account, but they would not have been the primary consideration. The overriding question being: How do we effectively protect our endangered species?

As I entered into the process as the environment critic for my party I believe the general community had a number of specific points that had to be considered and we had to get, at the end of the day, each one of these points to be part of the legislation.

There was the scientific listing of the species. There was the issue of the need for mandatory critical habitat. There was the question of jurisdiction; that is, how extensive would that mandatory critical habitat be. Would it be limited to certain areas of the country or would it have a broader range. Finally, there was the issue of compensation for those individuals, groups and communities negatively impacted in an economic sense by the legislation.

In my opinion the results in the legislation generally fail to meet effectively the requirements of each one of those issues. Before I go into that in more detail, it is important to address the issue of what happened with the bill. That of course raises the whole question of democracy in the House, specifically at the committee level. I suppose one should say the lack of democracy.

Even though I was only elected in November 2000, I am proud to say, and maybe a little arrogant to say it, I was really quite prepared for what would happen at the committee level. The government confirmed that I was quite prepared, because the democratic process at the committee level is generally a sham. However in the environment committee it was not and I was really surprised.

I saw members from all parties, members on the government side, from the Alliance, from the Bloc and from the Progressive Conservatives, come to the committee with a democratic framework in their minds. They came with fixed ideas and strongly held fixed opinions. However they came with open minds. In a number of cases, and I include myself in this, we were convinced either by other members on the committee, but most often by the testimony we heard, to change or at least moderate our opinions and those strong positions that we had brought to the bill and to the committee.

It sounds almost idealistic, but the environment committee is what parliamentary democracy and specifically the committee process within parliamentary democracy is all about. One has to credit not only the members, which I have already done, but specifically acknowledge the work of the chair and both vice chairs of the committee. They provided leadership and the framework by their rulings in the way they conducted the meetings and they allowed the democratic process to work.

The result was we received a bill from the environment department. These individuals collectively modified the bill significantly. We spent a lot of time on it, with well over 100 hours of hearings, a great number of witnesses and we changed the bill using the expertise of those witnesses and the expertise reflected in the individuals who sat around the table.

People ask if I am enjoying my work in the House. My answer universally is yes, I am very much. I would not give this up other than if I had to give up my wife and kids. They are the only ones that I would not sacrifice for this experience. Because of the people I have encountered and more specifically in the process on this bill is one reason I can say that.

We heard from concerned scientists. Their whole life has been dedicated to protecting endangered species and to researching and developing plans as to how we best protect them.

The other group that was most impressive were individuals from first nations and aboriginal communities. These people are on the frontlines. Yesterday and again this morning we heard the minister speak about the people who would carry this out. If anybody will save our endangered species, it probably will be first nations. It will not be this government. They are already doing good work.

What happened? We heard testimony at committee and the committee did its job. The bill was changed to reflect what was really needed.The bill came back to the House at report stage with 75 plus amendments, the majority of which came from the government. Those amendments were clearly designed to reverse almost all the work done by committee and not to strengthen the bill. The amendments would not make the bill more effective. In fact they would do just the opposite, in every case.

Let us look at the scientific listing of endangered species. We repeatedly heard the minister ask us to trust him, the government and the framework built into the bill. What has happened with that list? Initially the scientific group that prepared the list was shoved off to the side. The list compiled by it would not be incorporated into the bill. Only at one of the very last meetings we had with the minister before the committee did he finally concede the point that the list should be included. That is not from where he or his department started.

As recently as a week ago, another amendment came forward. Somehow the light shone on the government. The amendment strengthened a bit more the role of the scientific group. What is before the House today is not what the scientific community wanted and it is certainly not what the committee wanted.

What about critical habitat? This was an issue that we felt was of the utmost importance and it should be mandatory. The amendments put forward by the government a couple of months ago, which reduced the effectiveness of the bill, were slightly modified a week ago with a last minute amendment. However that is not enough. The mandatory nature of the bill is still extremely weak in many ways.

I want to use one example and that is extending the protection of the bill to migratory birds. In spite of some really strange legal opinions we received through the environment department, including one from a former supreme court justice who is an expert in this area plus other constitutional experts, we were told that the Government of Canada had the right to protect migratory birds. Is the government doing so? The answer is no. That is just one example of the lack of mandatory critical habitat protection.

What did we do about jurisdiction? Of course given the historical nature of Canada, we could not have gone through the bill without dealing with jurisdiction. There is constant friction between the provinces and the federal government over who does what.

I said in the House yesterday that if we looked at the role the provinces had played, because they clearly have some jurisdiction, it was not impressive. Not all the provinces have legislation. Those that have it do not have anywhere near the number of endangered species they should have on their list. Their enforcement mechanisms are wanting in almost every case.

It was very important, if one again applied that environmental prism, if one really believed that we would do something to protect endangered species, that the federal government extend its jurisdiction, which it clearly has the authority to do.

What have we ended up with? With this legislation in terms of federal lands, we cover approximately 5% of the country. We cover approximately one-third of all species. Therefore, two-thirds are left to the provinces and, in most cases, are left to nothing because they are not covered. We did not meet that standard with regard to jurisdiction or mandatory critical habitat.

The final issue we felt was very important was that of compensation. We heard a lot of evidence about this at the committee. The New Democratic Party of Canada was very clear from the beginning. If as a society we were going say that this was our social responsibility, then we could not dump that social responsibility on only certain individuals. Collectively we had to share that burden.

We heard again from the government mostly “trust us”. We made one minor amendment as to how the compensation would work. The government told us that we would get regulations to cover the rest of it. We never saw those regulations. It said it would do that later but “trust us”.

We should look very closely at how we handle the compensation. We should look very closely at who we compensate. We have nowhere near that in this legislation.

My time is running short and I want to go back to the issue of the “trust me” syndrome with which we are faced. We had the opportunity with the bill to move away from that and say that this would be the law. There is no question about co-operation, we will do that. There is no question about stewardship and the co-operative stewardship that already exists to some degree, which the bill enhances. That is recognized. It is the whole question of what do we do if we do not get that co-operation.

I already indicated why we cannot trust the government. I talked about the late amendments. We saw a late amendment, for instance, just to add to that list, covering aquatic species which we did not have earlier. The committee wanted it, put it into its report but it was taken out. It was put back in about a week ago.

We had a whole list of these things coming to plate late in the day. If that is an indication of how much we can trust the government, we have to say it is not good enough.

There was a whole history as well, before the bill came to the House, under other pieces of legislation where the government did not act when it could have.

In conclusion, the environmental prism with which I came to this House and wanted applied to the bill, and I believe Canadians wanted applied to the bill, was not used.

We have simply taken a look at this and the government has said “We promised this back in 1993 in our red book. We have to deliver. It does not matter what we deliver, let us just get a piece of legislation through. If it is a sham, if it does not do what it is supposed to do, we will still go out and spin it. We will convince Canadians that we have done something”. That is not the reality. We have not done enough here. We have failed.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague who, as he pointed out quite rightly, was a very hardworking member of our environment committee which dealt with this bill.

This is the third incarnation of the legislation. I had the privilege of working on Bill C-33 which predates my hon. colleague across the way.

It is interesting that the member would reference that some of the legal opinion was a bit curious, because I happen to know that he himself is a lawyer. It has been my experience both inside and outside government that when two lawyers are in a room there are often three or four opinions. He seems to be subscribing to some kind of lockstep assuredness in the species at risk legislation.

Clearly what the government has done and the stand we have taken is that co-operation should always be the first approach to protect species at risk. That is how the bill is structured. The government acknowledges that species at risk are protected on the land, not in the classrooms nor in the courtrooms of Canada.

The member made a couple of comments that I also found very curious. He seemed to infer that it does not include all of Canada. That is tacitly wrong. The bill certainly will work in partnership with aboriginal leaders as well as territorial and provincial governments but it will cover 100% of Canada.

It is interesting that while on the one hand he acknowledges the strength and the co-operative efforts that were made in the committee, on the other hand he criticizes the government when it reacts in a progressive way, in a manner that is attentive not only to the witnesses but to the committee work. Of the 125 amendments that came to the House, 70 were accepted because they clearly strengthened the bill with respect to transparency and accountability.

Would my hon. colleague like to comment on the stewardship program? This again goes back to the basis of co-operation, the basis of invitation to Canadians that they would continue to do the activities they are doing right now. I point out that the $45 million that was earmarked is indeed being spent. There are programs right across Canada and $10 million was spent this year on 160 local projects in partnership with local conservation associations which are protecting 208 species as we speak.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to the stewardship issue first. The government keeps trying to beat up on the opposition parties, and I do not know of any other way to say it, by trotting out the work it already has done regarding stewardship and what the bill will allow for. It is not an issue. We are fully supportive of that. There is not one member of the committee who did not see the value of the stewardship programs that already exist and what has been established under the bill for the future. That is not an issue. We agree that is the best way to do it. That is not what the argument is about.

What it is really about is what if it does not work? What if we get recalcitrant people over there? What if we do not compensate them well enough and they just cannot do it? Those are the other issues. That is what the fight over the bill was about as far as stewardship is concerned. It was not that we not do it, it was just the opposite, that we already do some of it. I do not know what else I can say in response to that other than to press the government as much as possible to do it in the proper fashion for which the bill sets out a framework.

With regard to it covering Canada, it goes back to the whole issue of discretion. It does not cover migratory birds. The government had a shot at it with this last round of amendments. It included aquatic species but did not include migratory birds. The reality is that if the species is on provincial land, it is discretionary as to whether it will be invoked or not. On private land it is the same thing. The mandatory part of it is very limited. I am not backing off on that at all.

As far as legal opinions, of course we can always trot out the lawyer jokes but I am sorry, this issue is too serious for that. Mr. Justice La Forest, a retired supreme court justice and an acknowledged expert, is very clearly of the opinion that the legislation from a constitutional jurisdiction standpoint could go much further. That is the position which I took.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the hon. member. He is a hardworking member on the committee, like my colleagues who have been working very hard.

There are many issues with this bill which are very important to all the stakeholders, such as listing of species, transparency, accountability, notification of landowners, species and critical habitat protection. The most important issues are compensation, criminal liability and socioeconomic considerations.

The minister has left everything in the minister's hands. The power is within the minister's jurisdiction that the minister will do something. It has not been put in black and white in the legislation. It has been left to the bureaucrats. Power has been left within the minister's hands.

This morning the minister asked us to trust him and to trust the government and that it will take care of compensation, socioeconomic considerations and criminal liability. I do not think that is going anywhere. Is the member prepared to trust the minister and the bureaucrats to take care of the important issues like fair and reasonable compensation?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in one word, no. I think I made it clear that I was not prepared to trust the minister or the department on a number of issues.

Specifically on the compensation, I have to take some issue with my friend from Surrey Central. I do not see that issue or the issues of criminal penalties and socioeconomic considerations as being the most important issues we dealt with. They were considerations, but they were secondary ones.

There is no question that we should have had a broader scope of how the compensation would work. The criminal penalties are fairly restrictive as well and we should have had a broader scope on those.

With regard to the socioeconomic considerations, I believe that the work the committee did in structuring the bill as to when socioeconomic considerations were to be taken into account was the appropriate way to do it. In that respect I had, and I believe the majority of the committee had, serious disagreements with the Alliance Party. It wanted to introduce socioeconomic considerations at times in the bill and at stages when species were being protected at various levels, which were much too early and I would say inappropriate.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to put on the record at third reading of Bill C-5 the Progressive Conservative position on the species at risk act.

There have been references in the Chamber throughout the day that this is the third attempt by the Government of Canada to deliver the species at risk act itself. There have been comments saying that the other bills had not worked and that this is a cumulative effort of past efforts in providing Canadians with better legislation.

There is an element of truth to that, but let us be very clear. We know as a point of fact that the reason Bill C-65 and Bill C-33 died on the order paper previously was that the Government of Canada chose for political reasons exclusively to call a national general election well within the traditional four year mandate, just over three and a half years. In the last case it was just under three and a half years. Those two bills were permitted to die on the order paper purely for political reasons.

I raise that issue because I believe it is even more salient given the perspective that Bill C-5 will likely pass third reading today. Once that is done it will be sent to the Senate. If it does not clear the Senate this summer, there is more than just the odd rumour that the Government of Canada may consider proroguing the House. That means all pieces of legislation on the order paper will die instantaneously.

The Government of Canada may choose once again to unilaterally let the species at risk legislation die or fail, not because the legislation necessarily was flawed, which it was in each one of those three cases, but purely for a politically driven rationale. I wanted to make that point very clear.

This legislation will be the first piece of environmental legislation by the Government of Canada in the nearly nine years since it formed the government after winning the election on October 25, 1993. In fact a number of individuals refer to the Liberal government's experience on environmental legislation to be “the lost decade”. In April the Sierra Legal Defence Fund issued its report “The Lost Decade” which criticized the Liberal government for failing to conserve biodiversity and protect its endangered species.

In contrast, the Progressive Conservative Party was in government between 1984 and 1993. We received numerous accolades with respect to how progressive our environmental laws were and how they enhanced our country.

We cite the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, which is our principal omnibus bill on the controlled use of toxins in our environment. We cite the fact that in 1987 Canada pulled the international world together on ozone depleting gases. We cite a $3 billion green plan on pollution prevention so that we can help move industry into a best practices regime.

We cite the fact that in 1992 at a biodiversity forum held in Rio de Janeiro it was Canada that led the international world to be one of the first signatories to commit to preserving our biodiversity. That was done in the summer of 1992 but unfortunately the following year there was a mild downsizing which prevented us from being able to follow through with legislation. The new Government of Canada had an opportunity to do that in 1993, 1994 and throughout the entire last decade to gain that what we have lost.

We knew that the government was at least challenged at providing the country with legislation which needed to be effective and could work on the ground.

We tabled a position paper that was drawn from the coalition experience that was formed by the species at risk working group which included the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, the Mining Association of Canada, the Sierra Club of Canada, and the Canadian Nature federation. They built a broad based coalition. There were some elements that we enhanced in our position paper tabled in March 2000 called “Carrots before sticks”.

We wanted to show stewardship and provide those incentives so that we could make it a common cause to protect our biodiversity. The first element of that document demonstrated that a species at risk should be determined by science and not political choice. The committee on the status of wildlife in Canada, known as COSEWIC, that entity of professional biologists are best to determine whether a species is endangered, extirpated, threatened, or whatever status it might have. That list should be the one that is considered.

The second element maintained that before we even consider having a law that could potentially engage on private landowners and on the provinces we should look after our own backyard. Otherwise we have no moral suasion to do so. We said there must be mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands including aquatic species.

The third point stated that we needed to protect transboundary species, particularly migratory birds. That is in an exclusive constitutional purview of the federal government.

The fourth point indicated the necessity to ensure that we had clarity with respect to the compensatory regime. All Canadians benefit from the preservation of biodiversity. The few should not have to pay the price. There must be clarity from the Government of Canada with respect to compensation.

Those are the four planks that we had fought for throughout the course of the deliberations on this act. The first initiative that took place in 1996 was when the national protocol and the preservation of biodiversity took place with the provinces and the federal government.. There is a commitment to have complementary legislation.

I want to make it clear that the approach the Government of Canada has taken with this law is better than the approach taken by the United States. Fostering stewardship, having a co-operative approach, working with our subnational governments whether they be territories or the provinces, is a more prudent approach. It fits with what we want to do as well. The problem with it is that the framework and the concept are fine but as always we can understand that the devil is sometimes often in the detail. There were some major gains in this legislation as a framework. It was enhanced at the committee level in each of those four planks that I touched upon.

I would like to go back to the minister's comments with respect to four points that he was most proud of. He used these four points in his conclusion. He mentioned there would be a scientific listing. Let us be clear. It was the committee that pulled the Minister of the Environment, dragging, kicking and screaming, to adopt the existing COSEWIC list. It was the committee on environment that ensured that once this law was enshrined that we would not have to have this lull of time before we even had a species on a list. We could use the existing COSEWIC list. The recommendation came from the committee, not from the Minister of the Environment, not from Privy Council, and not from the Prime Minister's Office. It was the learned members of the committee of all party stripes who did that.

I wish to applaud the member for York North who was steadfast in wanting to improve a lot of the environmental aspects of this legislation. She was critical of the Government of Canada for having a compromise amendment at the eleventh hour. One of the issues that the minister and the government are most proud of is something that they were not on board with in the first place.

The second thing they wanted was for aboriginal and traditional knowledge contributions to have a higher role in the act to determine whether a species was at risk or not. Just yesterday we had an amendment from the member for Churchill River in Saskatchewan that if the amendment had not passed that provision would have been gutted out.

The minister was proud that there would be a five year review. With all humility, it was again the committee that forced the Government of Canada to have a review aspect in the legislation in the first place. The committee put its shoulder to the wheel. We were pleased to do the homework for the Government of Canada.

Where is the bill still void? It is void on the scientific listing aspect and reverse onus concept that has been tabled before the House. It is an eleventh hour compromise. We would not have seen these eleventh hour amendments if it had not been for the fact that the government knew that it would lose the bill.

Moreover, the minister knew that if he lost the bill he would likely have lost his seat in cabinet. He would have been next Sunday's Shawinigan sacrifice. He would have been the individual who would have been next in line after the former defence minister and the former minister of public works. Although that political pressure spurred some positive reaction, let us give ourselves some credit that we can move the yardsticks if we apply the proper amount of pressure and have the courage or conviction to move in that direction.

Where the act is still void as well is that there was a compromise amendment made with respect to the mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, including aquatic species. It is not what the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada had advocated. It is not what the committee had advocated for the most part as well. However, it is better than what we had. We reluctantly supported it yesterday. It is a mediocre initiative. It is a convoluted approach that is not as clear as it should have been in the first place.

On the issue of migratory birds, transboundary species are in the exclusive domain of the federal government. It has the constitutional jurisdiction and the purview to protect those particular species. I find it ironic that on the Canadian Wildlife Service website we see photos of sandpipers and the whooping crane is the icon species of species at risk. Yet, this act does not protect migratory birds as a transboundary species. I encourage those folks who are riveted to their televisions at this moment to run to the Internet to look up that particular section on that national website.

Whooping cranes for the most part do nest in national parks so there is a strong element of their habitat that is protected. The Canadian Wildlife Service has chosen the whooping crane as its icon yet this is where the act is most void. I made reference yesterday to the blue heron. It is not a matter of self-preservation that I made that particular remark. However, that is something that should not be lost on the committee itself.

Pertaining to ensuring co-operation with the provinces I cited letters from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island on amendments the committee had made with respect to sections 32, 33 and 61 where we would establish criteria with the Government of Canada on the safety net provisions and would engage perhaps provincial jurisdiction if it were deemed appropriate in order to preserve a species. However it would not be done arbitrarily. Clear criteria would be set out to ensure that provincial legislation would be at least equivalent to federal legislation.

We received letters from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. that the amendments that the committee made on those sections were acceptable to them. In some situations the provinces stated they did not even like the sections in the first place and that is why they did not support the legislation.

The Government of Canada did not do its homework and build a broad based coalition with its provincial cousins as it needed to do. When the committee tabled the amendments that enhanced a co-operative approach with provincial governments, the Government of Canada unilaterally gutted them out.

It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to share with us at some point whether it consulted the provinces prior to removing the provisions by the provinces. The provinces put in writing, in letters dated December 2001, that they supported these provisions. We had a chance to have a pioneering bill and we have lost that opportunity with Bill C-5.

I would like to state for the record that the approach that the Government of Canada has taken is far more progressive than the approach taken in the United States. The problem is that the accountability mechanisms in the bill are far too weak.

I have had some spirited debates with the Minister of the Environment on the fact that we wanted everything done on a mandatory basis, but we needed to have some timelines. The committee had some acceptable timelines. If an action was deemed appropriate to be taken then it should have been done by a certain period of time as opposed to being left to drift. Those timelines were established by the committee.

The Government of Canada has taken that accountability mechanism out. It could have even left it in place as a guideline. The minister could have applied to parliament or have established a permit where an extension could be requested. However the government was reticent about making provisions that would make the Government of Canada more accountable.

I am pleased with a particular Progressive Conservative amendment that was accepted by all parties of the House. Our national stewardship action plan would enshrine into law the intent of what the Government of Canada wanted to do. It is clearly there. It is a comprehensive list with respect to what the government should include as part of its stewardship menu of initiatives that it can take and execute.

There was a debate among members of the House about what the best approach would be in terms of empowering criminal law on landowners. I am not a strong advocate of having any approach where we would spend more money and time in the courts than on the ground protecting species. I believe the government's approach on due diligence is more appropriate than the mens rea perspective, only if it is complemented with landowner notification. There is one provision in the bill which was tabled by the Progressive Conservatives that was accepted on landowners notification. The other ones have been removed from the bill.

The rural caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada has categorically let down rural Canadians. They sold them out when this side of the House asked for clear provisions on compensation. The least the Liberal caucus should have been insisting on was to have draft regulations in place so that we could follow what the Government of Canada would have done on compensation.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague across the way who was an active member on the committee. While I would acknowledge that there are times when he certainly does more than lift his weight, I would take exception to his characterization of the Minister of the Environment.

I would ask the member to react to a friend of ours who was well known to the committee, Stewart Elgie, who today in the paper said:

--[the Minister of the Environment] who succeeded in doing something that his predecessors could not getting an endangered species law passed....

[The Minister of the Environment] did it by emphasizing that protecting endangered wildlife requires not just the stick but also the carrot. His department worked tirelessly to ensure the Bill reflected this principle including securing over $50 million per year in funding to implement the bill....

The species at risk working group took out an ad this week in the Hill Times saying that “the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the Liberal Caucus,” as well as the Minister of the Environment, are to be thanked “for making improvements to the proposed legislation. Let's get on with the business of protecting species at risk.”

My hon. colleague pointed out that it is not a simple issue and it is not a simply structured bill. It is a bill that invites co-operation by landowners and provinces and territories.

When he talks about compensation, it undercuts, in my view, a lot of the excellent work done by the Liberal rural caucus. How would he propose to bring in a regime that we in committee talked about, where PFRA lands would be included and where we would look at farmers and fishers?

He seems to talk about the regulatory system as something that would be easy to come up with. I would challenge him to say what kind of system he could come up with that would be fair to everyone without excluding someone who should be compensated.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first part of her commentary, the amendments that were brought in at the eleventh hour made the bill almost mediocre as opposed to totally unacceptable. Kudos to the Government of Canada for going in that direction.

The parliamentary secretary referenced the advertisement by the species at risk working group The top part of the commentary states that it did not reflect the consensus the group had. The perspective would be that they saw gains in the eleventh hour amendments.

From the get go we wanted it to be a co-operative entity. I understand the approach that the group has taken in that regard. Having a commentary from a very learned environmental lawyer of the nature of Stewart Elgie, it does not get any better than that.

However the point is that each one of the deficiencies that I flagged are still salient. I believe those individuals at SARWG, or even Stewart Elgie, would categorically concur with respect to where my remarks came from.

I made it clear that the eleventh hour amendments was a positive initiative, not a negative one.

Let us look at the issue of compensation in regulations. Because of the eleventh hour amendments, the committee chose not to gut out a Progressive Conservative amendment to Motion No. 109 which stated that the Government of Canada shall make regulations. If the government shall make regulations that means it is committed to doing it.

The point is that if the government is going to do it, it should do its homework in a significant way so it could simultaneously table at least draft legislation with the framework agreement itself so we would know what we would be getting as an end product. It is incumbent on the Government of Canada to do that.

I think we actually know why the Government of Canada really did not get its act together on compensation. I will paraphrase some of the minister's earlier remarks with respect to compensation.

The minister said that responsible behaviour was something that we expect, not something we should have to buy. He was a reluctant convert to compensation in the first place which was the reason, after the act was tabled, that the homework had not been done in advance, despite having nearly a decade to actually do it.

We cannot cobble together complex regulations in a matter of a few months and weeks. The Government of Canada recognized that which is why we do not have the regulations tabled now. I believe that addresses the parliamentary secretary's concerns on those two points.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I have ever worked with a finer blue heron in all my political career. It is important for the viewers who are watching to understand that we often do not get the opportunity to have a view of the committee work which, in many respects, is the real work that parliamentarians do, particularly backbenchers.

I had the opportunity to work in the committee with the member for Fundy--Royal, the NDP critic; the critic from the Bloc; and the critic and environmental members of the Canadian Alliance. It was a wonderful committee process. We made very good gains with very productive results.

Could the member tell us a bit more about his national action plan on stewardship? It would elucidate for members and for viewers watching the concern of the member for Fundy--Royal both on the biological needs of protecting species and on some of the economic interests of landowners, et cetera.

[John Herron, Progressive Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what we have advocated all along is that we need a graduated approach to protecting species at risk. Just because a species is found on a particular property, whether it is federal, provincial or even private land, it is not an automatic situation where that land becomes completely unusable. Sometimes the actions that need to be taken can be extremely benign. It may be just a matter of informing the landowner or the province that there is a species at risk located at a certain spot and to tell them what actions they can take to avoid further harming that particular species. Sometimes it is just a matter of sharing information among various levels of government.

We could even have a systematic approach to creating an awards or recognition program where all Canadians are committed to preserving our biodiversity. If that were a token gesture of the Government of Canada or a provincial regime to do that, it would make a lot of sense.

We could have provisions for information respecting methods to formalize commitments to land stewardship, including conservation easement to agreements and government programs, whether it be technical or scientific advice, to actually help out the landowners. We could even have a commitment to regularly examine the tax treatment and subsidies to eliminate disincentives for actions taken by persons to protect species at risk.

We saw that just recently when the Government of Canada went in a very good direction by removing one of the most draconian taxes when an individual inherits land that is a private woodlot. Sometimes it was cheaper to actually cut all the wood at once in order to pay the taxes to maintain that property. The Government of Canada changed the tax code in the last budget, which was a positive step in that direction.

There are things we can do and a stewardship approach is far better than a command and control aspect.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Davenport.

Today represents the end of a very long road for many of us. I have been working with some of my colleagues on the very incarnation of this legislation since 1996. I am sure they would agree with a now defunct musical group who once sang, “What a long, strange trip it's been”. Ironically, the development of an endangered species law has almost made endangered species out of a number of us.

Until very recently I was convinced that I would have no choice but to vote against the bill. Voting against one's government is never an easy decision to make but at times it is necessary for a member to exercise this option.

The environment committee reported a much improved bill in early December 2001. On February 18, 2002, the government tabled its proposed amendments to the bill. I was heartbroken, as were many of my colleagues on the committee, to see so much of our hard and thoughtful work rejected by the government.

With the February report stage motions, Bill C-5 became, in my view, unworkable for the simple fact that it no longer made biological sense.

Afterward, certain newspaper editors took to criticizing those many of us who rose in this place to defend the committee's work and to express concerns about the proposed government amendments. The public was told that we were nitpickers. The public was told that if we really cared about preserving wildlife we would set aside our concerns. These were not just our concerns. All of us here attempt to reflect the views of Canadians.

Let me tell the House what Canadians were telling us through the tens of thousands of letters, postcards and e-mails they sent to Ottawa. Among other things, they asked that, in a bill full of discretion, cabinet control and escape hatches, the federal government at least guarantee that it will protect critical habitat protection in its own backyard. Indeed, a Pollara poll released last month indicated that 76% of Canadians believed that the law should require this. Canadians also wanted improvements made to the listing process.

To the government's credit, it listened. Individuals in the Prime Minister's Office worked hard to address some of the key concerns that Canadians and a number of Liberal caucus members had about the bill.

I would be lying if I said that the bill before us is without flaws. It is not. For example, it does not prohibit the killing of a listed species everywhere in Canada, which one would expect to be a basic tenet of an endangered species law. It backs away from the protection of migratory bird habitat. There are no timelines on the development of action plans, which concerns me a great deal. The bill is also profoundly discretionary. I have to say that this makes me very uncomfortable.

However, lest I be accused of being unreasonable or a perfectionist, and I have certainly been accused of much worse, I always felt that if the government were willing to move toward the committee language around listing and the protection of critical habitat protection in federal jurisdiction, then I would consider supporting the bill.

I am pleased to say that good changes were made in those areas in the past few weeks, and I commend the government for that. I believe that the shortcomings of the bill must be balanced with the positive changes brought about by last week's amendments and with the need to have a statute in place so that we may begin to protect species under this new framework. We are embarking on a new journey with this bill and it is time that journey begins.

I want to thank the thousands of Canadians in all walks of life who took the time to write, e-mail and fax their members of parliament and to appear at committee asking that the legislation be strengthened in key areas. For those who believe that such efforts are always futile, I point to the changes that have been made in the legislation, both at committee stage and last week, as proof that this is not always the case.

I would also like to thank my colleagues in the government caucus who saw opportunities for improving the bill and who worked together to ensure that these improvements happened.

I emphasize that members of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development worked closely together on this bill through many hours of hearing witnesses and considering amendments with great camaraderie and co-operation. Good debate was had, compromises were struck and decisions were made about how to improve the bill. Our work resulted in common ground and was based on the testimony of scientists, aboriginal peoples, conservationists, academics, industry representatives and Canadians from all walks of life. As such, the results of our deliberations were sound and clearly struck a chord with the public. I thank my committee colleagues for their tireless efforts.

Government and opposition backbenchers alike often feel powerless and far removed from the true machinations of government. Our points of influence at times seem restricted to private members' business and to our work at committee. When those arenas appear fruitless, it is easy to sink into a state of despondency.

The late changes to Bill C-5 should encourage all members of the House. Reasonable informed arguments strongly supported by the public have clearly succeeded in improving the bill.

Finally, I want to talk about species at risk, not the bill, not the rhetoric, but the species themselves which sadly, were often lost in all of the debate. What we are talking about at the end of the day is life, the life of a species, a species whose very existence has come to such a perilous point that it must turn to humanity to save it. In many cases we are the very threat it faces. The irony of depending on the executioner for help is not lost on everyone I hope.

Yet we have often lost sight of species during the months of deliberation. Why? Because we allowed the voices of politics and economics to ring loudly in our heads to the point of distraction. In the clamour for money and assurances that players would not necessarily have to act, and in the posturing and the politics around jurisdictions, responsibility and flexibility, we often forgot what it is that we set out to do: to protect lives.

Perhaps this is to be expected. Parliament at times seems to bow to those who shout loudest or issue the gravest warnings. As we know, the species we are charged with protecting have no voice in this place. I have not been lobbied by a lichen, a turtle or a willow. I have received no threatening letters from a mole, a salamander or a piece of moss. No sunfish has approached me cap in hand asking for consideration of his troubles.

Tonight we will cast our final vote on Bill C-5. I remind my colleagues that it is the species that will ultimately vote for the bill. They will vote for the so-called approach of Bill C-5, its so-called philosophy, with their very lives. They will either survive or they will not. How is that for accountability? And that is what the bill is really about.

[Charlie Penson, Canadian Alliance, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, because this is important to Canadians, does my colleague agree that all Canadians should share in the cost of protecting the endangered species that she and other members have spoken about?

The reason I ask that question is that a lot of landowners in my area will have to bear the cost themselves if the rest of society does not agree to share in paying for lost land that may be the habitat for an endangered species. Is it not important that all Canadians share in the responsibility of paying to protect the endangered species?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my riding of York North is a microcosm of Canada. There is a very strong urban component, but there is also a very strong and vital rural component, so I understand the concerns of landowners.

I would also suggest that we have to look at what is in the legislation. We have to look at what lands will be affected. We also have to look at the process that will be involved when the government undertakes the endeavour to protect endangered species.

There are many opportunities for consultation. There are many opportunities for voluntary initiatives. In fact the recent agreement that we reached around critical habitat protection allows for a variety of measures to come into play before a prohibition would actually affect a landowner. One would even have to ask how many landowners would really be affected because we are only talking about federal lands.

We have often been asked who pays the cost when we protect an endangered species. I would ask members and indeed I would ask all Canadians, who pays the cost when the species is gone forever? We are talking about species on the brink of extinction. We are talking about species that will be lost to our planet forever. What price do we put on the last eastern cougar? What price do we put on the last St. Lawrence beluga whale? These are questions we have to ask ourselves.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me jump into the subject matter very quickly because of limited time and say that there are certain lessons we could learn from the study of Bill C-5. I will try to do that in the short time available, as well as comment on some of the interventions this afternoon.

The first lesson we learned was that as a general rule, listening to interested Canadians, to knowledgeable people, to witnesses, to people who care, definitely leads to better legislation when there is a will to modify any bill presented to parliament. There is nothing to be lost and everything to be gained by an all party committee of parliamentarians conducting a thorough review of any proposed legislation.

The department proposing the legislation is not infallible. The Department of Justice is not infallible. Neither is cabinet nor privy council. The input of citizens and the thus acquired knowledge is most valuable when examining indepth a proposed bill and how it would work in practice. Neither cabinet nor the minister proposing the legislation has the time to carry out such a task in detail. That is a fact of parliamentary life.

The next lesson we learned was that amendments made in committee have value, particularly when members of the government and opposition parties get together and agree on improvements. Take these two examples. The committee made a change regarding the representation of aboriginal peoples and made a change so that the writing of regulations on compensation would be mandatory. At report stage the government reversed these changes, only to discover that it made a serious political mistake.

We come now to recent changes made possible by the Prime Minister's support. The scientific listing is one of them and the mandatory protection of habitat on federal lands is the other.

On the first change, a provision was made whereby once the scientific community proposes future additions to the list of endangered species, cabinet has nine months to reject them and must give reasons. If no action is taken by cabinet during the nine months, the list automatically becomes official. Thus the accountability of elected representatives is retained but within a limited period of time and the independent role of scientists is thus given greater significance.

Regarding mandatory habitat protection, it must be said that when Bill C-5 was sent to committee for study, mandatory habitat protection was not in the bill. Some 1,300 scientists, including 113 fellows of the Royal Society of Canada, wrote to the Prime Minister urging the inclusion of mandatory habitat protection. The government listened and now the bill includes mandatory protection on federal lands.

Both amendments are vast improvements to the bill and the Prime Minister together with the member for York North deserve the credit. These improvements were made possible by the government's willingness to be flexible. Thus the integrity and the value of the committee process has been considerably restored.

Here are some more lessons. In hearing witnesses we also discovered that we actually were dealing more with human interests than with endangered species. Yes, the title of the bill addresses endangered species and their protection, but the content of the bill is a different story. We had to pay attention to economic interests, be they fisheries, farming, forestry or cattle, in other words, people. While representatives of certain economic sectors declared that they were in favour of protecting species at risk, they became defensive of their economic interests and asked for the removal of clauses of the bill which may interfere with their economic activities.

Socioeconomic considerations for instance emerged in discussions. Economic interests became the centre of discussions and in effect took precedence over the protection of endangered species, no matter how seriously in danger the species might be.

We also became aware of another factor. We had to take into account the absurdity, from the standpoint of endangered species of course, of political boundaries and federal-provincial relations. The logic that the survival of a bird could be jeopardized in a province with weak legislation but that the same bird could be safe if it landed in a tree located on federal land is simply bizarre.

The committee's awareness was sharpened by the knowledge of the very poor performance of provincial governments in protecting endangered species so far, with the exception of Nova Scotia. Giving priority to federal-provincial relations in the protection of endangered species would be acceptable if the federal legislation were at the same time mirrored by provincial legislation and if, until it were mirrored, federal legislation would apply on provincial land.

However, we had to settle for a different approach, under the leadership of the member for York North, and we pressed for the welcome amendments which ensure mandatory habitat protection on federal lands. Without mandatory protection on federal lands the federal government would have no moral authority in urging and expecting provincial and territorial governments to pass habitat protection legislation that would also be mandatory. It is our hope that this is the way it will work.

I listened to the debate this morning. I must say that the member for Windsor--St. Clair developed his analysis of the bill in the debate this morning and I listened very carefully, as I always do when he speaks. I would like to thank him for his contribution in committee and would like to give him, as well as the members of the House who have expressed their concerns, the assurance that the bill as amended last night does cover mandatory habitat protection of migratory birds on federal lands. It does not do that on provincial lands out of respect for provincial jurisdiction, but at least it does so on federal lands so as to set a good example for the provincial and territorial governments.

Turning now to the official opposition, I regret very much having to say that the member for Red Deer was wrong yesterday and was wrong again this morning. Yesterday he claimed there is no compensation. I will quote what he said on page 12385 of Hansard :

Under the current bill there would not be compensation or fair market value. It does not even contain the term fair and reasonable--

I invite the member and his colleagues on the opposition side to read clause 64 of the bill in which the words “fair and reasonable” are to be read in the legislation. Therefore, the concept of compensation is there in its fullest legislative commitment. It is there to be read. It is there to be seen.

Today the member for Red Deer claimed that Bill C-5 is patterned on U.S. legislation. He was wrong again. If anything, the bill is not patterned on U.S. legislation and that was actually the clear intent when it was launched from the very beginning.

Again today we heard the member for Red Deer claim that Bill C-5 lacks flexibility. He is wrong again. There is a tremendous amount of flexibility built in. There is actually too much. The member for York North even made a reference to the fact. It is of some concern to us there is too much flexibility, but definitely that item has been taken into account.

The member for Red Deer also made the statement this morning that Bill C-5 intrudes on provincial jurisdiction. I must say that this is also wrong. If there is anything the bill achieves, it is the very clear concern and respect for provincial jurisdiction, except in one particular instance in a clause that has to be invoked in the case of a very serious emergency.

I would hope that future speakers for the Alliance will restore the credibility of the official opposition on Bill C-5 in light of the statement by the member for Red Deer. To that I should add, because compensation seems to be the centre of considerable attention, that a stewardship fund has been allocated. The concept of stewardship embraces compensation and $180 million has been allocated to stewardship. Some $45 million has already been included in the current fiscal budget and $10 million has been put into place to work toward stewardship, which includes compensation.

This morning the minister himself said in his intervention that we are working on general compensation regulations. He said that regulations will set out the procedures for compensation claims. I am asking the members of the opposition to listen carefully. Finally, he said that we will address claims on a case by case basis. Is that not sufficient evidence of the commitment of the government to compensation?

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I respect this member for his work for the environment and for many environmental issues. However, I do believe that he and I have a fundamental difference of opinion with respect to the issue of compensation. If I may restate my position, let me say I believe that in regard to Canadian law all Canadians want to have proper protection of and a proper protection regime for endangered species. That is my position and that is the position of my party.

Therefore, I ask the member why, in amendment number 109, I believe, although I may be incorrect, the government made the decision to change this word: that the government “shall” compensate to “may” compensate. It seems to me that this is contrary to what this member has just said when he says that the government has shown in its fullest legislative commitment. I believe those were his words. How is the government showing its fullest legislative commitment when it removes the word “shall” from the words shall compensate and replaces it with the word “may” ?

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to the member for Kootenay--Columbia for his question because it allows for elucidation. First, the clause he refers to is on the question of writing regulations, not making compensation. What happened in committee was this. The language was permissive and the committee majority, with the participation of Alliance members, changed the word “may” to “shall”. We thought that was a tremendous improvement. It relates to the writing of regulations, so that the committee directed the minister to write regulations on compensation, so it was no longer permissive. It became mandatory.

When the bill was reported to the House there was Motion No. 109, I believe. That motion reversed the language as to how it was written when the bill was sent by the House to the committee after second reading. Then there was the very vigorous intervention, to which the parliamentary secretary alluded earlier, by the rural committee and I suppose by the members of the Liberal rural caucus, I should say. I am sure their representations were made. There were at least 40 Alliance speakers who at report stage talked about this topic as well. Having heard from virtually the entire House, the government wisely decided to revert to the change made in committee by making the writing of regulations mandatory, not permissive.

I hope that I have clarified this item for the member for Kootenay—Columbia, for whom I have the highest respect and whose speech yesterday certainly contributed to the evolution of thought in the House.

[Jim Abbott, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that was a good clarification and I thank the member, though I would also ask him about what he has mentioned in regard to a figure of $180 million for stewardship. I wonder if he would not agree with me that, considering the size of Canada, the magnitude of the potential of this problem, and although $1 million is a whole lot more than I would understand and $180 million is 180 of them, in fact the budgeting by the government is exceptionally meagre against the challenges that will be faced. If we are looking at protecting species by protecting habitat, particularly if we are talking about either private property or tenured property, whether it be for mineral rights or tree cutting rights or whatever, we are talking about the loss of value. I wonder if the member would not agree me that in fact the $180 million, $45 million already in the present budget, is indeed a very tiny amount, a very meagre amount, in comparison to the challenge that is likely going to face this government.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member that this amount may well have to be revisited. Maybe the day will come when the official opposition will urge the government to increase its budget in certain sectors, including this one. We will certainly applaud that pressing on the part of the official opposition.

However, the main point is this. A farmer or a woodlot owner who would have to suspend certain farming or harvesting activities in order to protect a species at risk by not cutting a woodlot or by not cutting hay during certain seasons should be, and I hope will be, fully entitled to a compensation that is fair and reasonable in order to help.

As the member for Peace River indicated earlier, this is a burden that ought to be distributed evenly across the country amongst all Canadians.