Debates of June 11th, 2002

Species At Risk Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

I regret that I have to interrupt the hon. member, but I have already allowed for more time because the questioner took a bit more time. I responded by giving additional time to the hon. member. I must now resume debate with the amount of time left on this important matter.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as the hardworking member for Red Deer said earlier today, we wish that we were here celebrating the success of the bill and celebrating the passage of a good bill. Unfortunately we are not able to do that today.

I would just like to take a minute to respond to the comments of the member for Davenport. I was very concerned because I think it shows a lack of being in touch with Canadians to come in here and suggest that the bill does not create uncertainty, resentment and distrust among Canadian people, because it most certainly does among the people in my riding. They do not know what to expect from the bill. It concerns them and it causes uncertainty, resentment and distrust. It did not have to be that way, but unfortunately it has turned out that way.

I would like to take a little time to talk about the main issues we have with the bill. First I would like to say that the Canadian Alliance has consistently supported good species at risk legislation. We would like to see a bill that is effective, we would like to see a bill that is useful and we would like to see a bill that is realistic, that Canadians can deal with knowing they will be dealt with fairly in the legislation.

As I said, the main problem, which we have heard about all day today, continues to be the issue of compensation. The main objection to the bill is the government's refusal to protect its citizens by providing full market value compensation. I will spend some time talking about it, but the amount of discussion this has generated is interesting. I would suggest that it has been generated because the Canadian Alliance, and the Reform Party before it, has been very firm on this issue and has insisted that we need to have fair market value compensation for people affected by species at risk legislation.

The lack of compensation is the main problem with the bill. The bill does not provide for it. We can talk about it all day here, but there is an absolute refusal on the part of the government to put fair market value compensation into the bill. It continues to talk about regulations. I would suggest that it is talking about regulation and regulating things at the same time as it is taking away Canadians' rights. I will also assert that I think this is tied to a consistent position the Liberal Party has taken over the years, that being that it does not want to recognize personal property rights. This bill is in line with that position.

I am sick and tired of hearing government members justify the lack of compensation in the bill. It would be very simple to fix. If the government really thought it was an issue it could have been fixed very easily. It has chosen not to do that and I wish it would have.

The minister's speech here this morning sent up a lot of warning flags. I heard him say a number of things I would like to touch on. One of the things he said is that the government will work with landowners in willing partnerships. Without that fair market value compensation, though, it made me think of the movie The Godfather , when they made people an offer they could not refuse. I know that none of us want to wake up with a burrowing owl in our bed.

The government says it “shall” provide regulations. That does not guarantee anything other than more regulations. It does not guarantee producers a thing. Again the issue is that compensation must be at fair market value. It needs to be written into the legislation. There is now no mention of it in the legislation.

The minister also made a couple of other comments that really concern me. He said they would get started on general compensation regulations, and then there was a funny phrase in there: if needed. It may not show up in Hansard later on, but I found it interesting. It was almost a side comment that he made, that they would start on them if needed. If the government is not going to put them into the legislation then we certainly need them, immediately if not sooner.

He also made the suggestion that the government would be dealing with the claims on a case by case basis. I do not know of anyone other than other Liberals who would think that this is a good idea. I have an example from the past, which is the expropriation of land for the Suffield military base near Medicine Hat. The family of a friend of mine grew up in that area. The time came when the government wanted that land for a military base. The government talked to the ranchers and invited them to come to Medicine Hat individually to discuss with the government the deal that they could make on their ranches and their land.

The ranchers went in and made their deals, but the one thing the government had not counted on was that on the way home the ranchers all stopped at one place to have coffee. At that house they of course talked about the agreements and deals they had made. They started to realize that they were being treated quite a bit differently one from the other. They got together and went back to Medicine Hat together. I was told that they went in the front door of the building and the bureaucrats went out the back door and after that they ended up negotiating long distance. They all got the same deal in the end, but the danger was that they were being divided and conquered individually. When they finally got together and stood up for themselves, they were able to make a deal they could live with.

I get very concerned when I hear the minister say that regulations will be put in place over the next few years but until then the government will deal with things on a case by case basis. Given the government's record and recent history, I do not think Canadians should be at all comfortable with the fact that the Liberals want to deal with them on a one to one basis. There may be some good things in that for a small group of people but the majority of Canadians will not be treated properly.

I want to come back again to the fact that the minister and the members are still implying that compensation is included in the bill. I know we are running short on time and not many more members will be speaking on the bill. However, I would ask the government members to show some integrity in this.

Yesterday one member on the opposition side said that corrupt attitudes spread like scum on a pond. I understand how that happens but a little courage and clarity would go a long way. If government members would get up and say that the bill does not have compensation written into it but that they are supporting it anyway, the Canadian people could understand this and may even show them respect for having the courage to take a position.

Here is the reality. There is no compensation and I encourage the government members to admit it, stand up and take that position. Otherwise we will find a situation like we had last week when Bill C-15B passed without providing legal protection to farmers and ranchers. Afterward we saw government backbenchers are trying to justify it in their ridings. When they are called to account, they have no explanation for the position they have taken. The idea that we can pass it on to the other place and it will fix up legislation that we have the responsibility to fix here will not work.

Rural members of all parties could have worked really well on this legislation. The committee did that but the minister chose not to accept it.

Rural members need to work together. The opposition members have done their job on the bill. They have forced the discussion. They have brought in a large number of amendments, not frivolous ones, but ones where that dealt seriously with changing the bill. The Liberal backbenchers need to show some support and backbone in supporting these initiatives. It is not good enough for the rural backbenchers to come out of the woodwork, which happened with this bill to a great extent, only because they support one of the Prime Minister's challengers. We need to see rural backbenchers coming out of the woodwork because they are representing their constituents, not because they are trying to cause damage to someone else and gain political advantage.

The Liberal rural backbenchers have an obligation to their constituents and Canadians deserve better than what they are getting right now from the backbench on the other side of the House.

The second major issue is the legal rights of producers and farmers. Again, we saw the sad situation last week when Bill C-15B was passed without providing legal protection to farmers and ranchers. It was then justified later. Again, in Bill C-5 we see a situation where farmers and ranchers will not have the proper legal protection.

I have a huge concern about the attitudes behind the bill. There were two ways that it could have been put together. One was through a coercive way and the government chose that way. We saw it before with Bill C-68. Now there is massive non-compliance with the act. We will see ourselves in the same situation as the U.S. with the triple S. The government will come in and tell people what to do. The producers will react with a shoot, shovel and shut up policy which definitely does not preserve species at risk.

I also object to the fact that the government brought in closure to cut off debate on an important issue. This action does not give people the opportunity to finish the debate.

In conclusion, it may be too late to ask the government this, but it needs to take another look at the bill and include amendments that provide protection for landowners, both for full market value compensation and for legal protection. It should use the suggestions that we have made about providing compensation and set up the bill so that it uses positive incentives to encourage people to be conservation minded, that is tax incentives to provide technical assistance to stakeholders, farmers and producers. The government needs to eliminate some of the disincentives and provide payment programs if necessary to encourage people to co-operate.

The government needs to understand that farmers are the best environmentalists we have. We need to give them the tools to protect their environment.

We have heard about aboriginal working groups. It surprises me that there is no local working group and that is something the government should look at.

If the government is not going to make these changes, the government will pay the consequences both in terms of the loss of endangered species and at the polls.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have more fearmongering from the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands who prefers to make speeches in place of reading the bill. If he has read the rather lengthy section on compensation, I invite him in his reply to indicate to the House the number of that lengthy section, unless he wants to get some help from his colleagues. However I have the profound impression from his intervention that he has not read the section in question and therefore he again has repeated the mistake of other interveners in this debate, namely, saying outright that there is no compensation in the bill. That is wrong and incorrect.

I would like to indicate to the hon. member that he is a little late when he makes suggestions at third reading. His speech could have been quite helpful at second reading when the bill was sent to committee. However at third reading suggestions are too late. The procedure is completed. I do not think that it is helpful to have interventions that are creating this kind of unwarranted fear by members who do not read the bill before making their speeches.

I would very much welcome the comments of the hon. member.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the bill at least twice so I understand the provisions in it. I am a little annoyed because I made many of these suggestions earlier. Now the chairman of the committee tells me that the members would have been glad to have had them earlier. We did make those suggestions. They are not new.

I resent the implication that we are fearmongering. We are dealing with the truth. We are talking about this bill. It does not have fair market value compensation in it no matter how much he wants to pretend or talk around it. That is the situation.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am a rural member. I am on the government side. As I mentioned earlier, I have been involved in this process for a long time ago.

The government is able to move legislation through if it wishes. One of the reasons it took a long time for this legislation is it wanted to consult widely and deal with contentious matters, including compensation, as the chair of the committee indicated.

I represent a riding where there are perhaps 2,000 farms and large areas of forest land which are being used. Of those farms, there are 125 dairy farms, a buffalo farm which has been there for 50 years, beef farms and sheep farms. It is a very diverse riding.

In agriculture, the province of Ontario is even more diverse. In many ways it is the leading agricultural province in the country. It stretches from the vineyards of the south, where I understand we grow kiwi fruit, to the polar bears of the north around James Bay. We have an incredibly diverse and successful rural agricultural economy.

Does the member realize, in his fearmongering, that for many years now people in the province of Ontario have been living with endangered species legislation? Has he heard of any serious problems with respect to compensation under Ontario's internal endangered species legislation?

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious they are sharing talking points as well as some of their speeches.

I would like to raise an interesting issue of my own. If I have a piece of land and I find a rare mineral on it, the value of my land goes up. After this legislation is passed, if I find a species at risk on my land, the value of that land will go down. The government has not put fair market value compensation in the bill. What is the incentive to participate and co-operate with the government on this one?

The minister this morning condemned the experience of the United States. Then he brought in similar legislation. Producers in Canada have no incentive to co-operate with this legislation. It could have been so simple if this government would have said “We will compensate you a fair market value when we come in and take your land. We would be glad to work with you. We would be glad to support this legislation”. The government chose not to do that for its own reasons, but it should not pretend that this is in this bill.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to rise today to speak on Bill C-5 because it is a testament to perseverance and commitment to endangered species legislation.

I did not sit on the committee, but I was made aware of this issue back in the summer of 1999. A number of environmentalists live in my constituency and are very concerned about the environment. In fact in 1997, when I was campaigning in my first election, I went door to door and people asked me what happened to the species at risk legislation. They said they were very concerned about it and felt that the Liberal government was not concerned enough about the environment. They then asked me what I would do about it. We made our commitment to pass endangered species legislation quite clear in the 1997 red book.

I would like to recount how I became involved in this issue. In 1999 a constituent of mine, Professor Stewart Elgie, who has become a good friend and who also happens to be an environmental lawyer, came to talk to me about the importance of the endangered species legislation. He also wanted to talk about it from a trade perspective, particularly with respect to what had been happening in the United States. At that time I was chair of the Subcommittee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment.

In 1992, when we signed the biodiversity convention, we undertook to implement species at risk legislation. In fact between 1980 and 1999 American lobbyists were already proposing the Pelly amendment to what I believe was the fishers act to again petition congress about the fact that Canada had not passed species at risk legislation. In fact the Americans, as they are known to do in their tactics, threatened trade retaliation if we did not do this.

It did not actually get to that point but it was written up in the New York Times . There was motion afoot to make congress move on the Pelly amendment. I remember raising this issue at our caucus meeting in the summer of 1999 when the Minister of the Environment had just taken over that portfolio. I spoke to him about how important it was that we continued to proceed with and pass legislation not because we were forced to do it but because it was the right thing to do.

I remember learning more and more about the legislation and just how important it was not only to strike a balance but at the same time how important it was to show that the Liberals had an environmental agenda and that we meant to follow up on it.

I also remember when the legislation was first tabled. The minister came to Toronto at that time to consult with GTA members on the first reading. I also remember that there were a number of concerns raised even by members of the GTA caucus. We realized how important it was to pass this legislation but we did not want legislation for the sake of legislation. We wanted it to be good legislation.

As I said at the outset, to me this is a testament that we have persevered. It is a testament of the caucus working together. It is a testament of the standing committee working together. It is a testament to listening to stakeholders. It is a testament that finally, after all these years, we have brought species at risk legislation into being which addresses the most important issues.

In the time that I have, I would like to look at the foundation pieces that make up this legislation. They tell the story and show that the proposed species at risk act will do exactly what it is intended to do: protect wildlife in Canada while taking the needs of Canadians into consideration. It is not an anti-rural issue at all. Our own rural caucus worked very hard to ensure that compensation was present and that it was not just discretionary with respect to legislation. The words were not just preparatory, they were mandatory.

First and perhaps foremost in my mind is the important role science is to play in the proposed act. Science is at the very heart of the bill, science that is the best we can get, science that is independent, science that informs decision making.

Wildlife species will be assessed by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, also known as COSEWIC. This arm's length independent body has 25 years of respected, verified and hugely important work already behind it.

Remember that in this proposed law there will be no secrecy whatsoever about the result of COSEWIC's deliberations. Following these come the recommendation to add species to schedules attached to the law. That leads us to another key foundation of the proposed act, the issue of accountability.

Once the scientists have done their work independently, the governor in council will establish the legal list. This is an area where there has been no small amount of controversy. It has been way too easy to say that scientists are not making the decision on the list and leave it at that. It reads well, but it is not entirely true and leaves out the important part of the story.

When the legal list is established, there is a lot more to it than publishing a list. Processes begin. Plans get made. Habitats are designated and prohibitions come into play. There are serious implications with each one. Decisions made here affect the use of land. Decisions here affect the future of some landowners, resource companies, fishers and recreation operators.

It is the job of the government to decide what actions to take. It is not a power grab from the scientists. It is an accountability framework and we have to answer to the people because they elected us.

Further basic tenets of the act are found in the protection of all species in their critical habitat wherever they may exist in Canada. The proposed species at risk act would provide this protection in a manner that is consistent with our international obligations, including those under the convention on biological diversity. Also at its very foundation is the first response of stewardship and co-operation.

In talking about stewardship and co-operation, I would like to quote what my constituent, Professor Stewart Elgie, stated today in response to the legislation that we hopefully will pass today:

[The environment minister] 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 and support on the ground conservation work.

In addition, I do not know if other members have seen this, but in the Hill Times there is a thank you to the minister, the standing committee and the Liberal caucus for making improvements to the legislation. An ad has been put in the paper by the Species at Risk Working Group, which includes the Canadian Nature Federation, the Canadian Wildlife Federation, the Forest Products Association of Canada, the Mining Association of Canada and the Sierra Club of Canada.

It is possible that environmentalists and industrialists can work together because we know how important it is to preserve our environment. We do so by slowly beginning to ensure that our endangered species are protected. If we do not protect our endangered species, we will also be destroying ourselves.

It is also important for everyone to know that the legislation is reviewable in five years. It is an opportunity to test the legislation and to fine-tune it. It is not unusual. We have the same thing in the Department of Canadian Heritage with respect to the Copyright Act where there is a five year review.

I look forward to watching these foundation pieces in action as a single entity that will be the species at risk act. I look forward to learning new lessons while ensuring solid actions are taken on the ground. Most of all, I look forward to moving on with the legislation to protect our species because now is the time.

Business of the House

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place among the parties with respect to the take note debate on government business No. 28 scheduled for later this day in committee of the whole. I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That during the take note debate in committee of the whole on government business No. 28 later this day, members may be permitted to split their time by so indicating to the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada, be read the third time and passed; and of the amendment.

Species at Risk Act

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate there is closure on the amount of time because there is a great deal more that I would like to say.

I want to make one observation right off the bat. The member for Davenport chastised us for not speaking up on the committee or doing this through the committee but he did not say anything when a Liberal member did it.

I would like to pose a question for the member and then make some comments.

One thing that needs to be put in legislation which is very questionable when it goes through the House is a clause that mandates a review of the legislation after a certain period of time, such as five years. It is known as a sunset clause or a clause that would create an automatic review by an unbiased agency or committee of the House to check to see whether the legislation is actually working. Why did the Liberal government not put one in? Would the member support that kind of thing?

We have to realize that once we pass legislation in the House, it is there forever. We have made many suggestions which have fallen on deaf ears.

The member for Peterborough wanted an example of where proper compensation was not made. I am completely familiar with the Firearms Act and it was not provided for in a proper way in that act.

Today many people are being deprived of their property. Because we do not have property rights in this country, we must have compensation mandated in the bill. Because it is not in there and it is left to the regulations, anything could happen. We need to have some kind of a revision after five years.

Many people in Canada do not realize that another problem with leaving it to the regulations is that we do not have an effective scrutiny of regulations system in the House of Commons. It flies in the face of democracy that the committee that reviews these and says they are not appropriate has no power to enforce the fact that regulations are not effective. That is the reason we have to get the bill right before it goes through the House. We do not have an effective scrutiny of the regulations in the House. I only became aware of that after a few years of experience in this place.

Compensation is not ensured. That is a serious problem which has been raised in western Canada. It may not be raised in Ontario but it is raised in western Canada all the time.

The other issue which the member for Davenport talks about is the creation of mistrust. What creates mistrust is the fact that in the bill there is what is called mens rea. People may be violating the law or have an endangered species on the land and are not aware of it and there is no obligation to make them aware of it. That is totally unacceptable but the government is letting that go through. That creates mistrust and it is a huge problem.

Bill C-15B passed and now that the bill has passed, we realize we did not get it right. The medical community is already concerned with what we have done in the House.

Is there a mandatory review mechanism in the bill? No. Why not? That should be mandated in every bill.

Would the member opposite support that kind of amendment being made before we go any further? It is critical that we get it right in the House before we let this legislation go. If we do not, we ought to stop it right here. That is what I am suggesting.

We are all in favour of protecting species but the way the bill sits, it is going to have the opposite effect.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I tried to take as many notes as I could. I trust that if I am not able to answer all the issues the member opposite has raised, I can possibly do it at another time.

With respect to mens rea, going back to my legal training, this is not a criminal offence. Environmental legislation is not criminal legislation. Mens rea is a key element of criminal legislation. Environmental legislation is strict liability. We have to make the distinction between criminal code amendments and strict liability.

With respect to the concern that there is not an opportunity to review or vet regulations, let me make it absolutely clear that most recently with the new immigration and refugee protection act, draft regulations were tabled, reviewed by the committee and amendments were made. To say that members have no input to regulations is absolutely incorrect.

It was the same thing when we were discussing section 31 of the Copyright Act where we had to deal with the compulsory retransmission licence. Both the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Canadian Heritage have committed to allow legislation to be passed but not to make it effective until draft regulations are before the committee which we will in turn look at.

It is quite misleading to say that once legislation is passed, that this framework enabling legislation has to work and it all goes to the bureaucrats and members of parliament do not have any input. That is absolute nonsense.

With respect to the review, there is a five year review in the bill. I think the hon. member opposite is trying to draw a distinction between a sunset clause and the fact that this would expire at the end of five years as opposed to looking at the legislation itself to see how it will best work and when we will be in the process of negotiating stewardship agreements.

I remind members opposite that the bill provides for round table consultations after two years in order to look at the act. It is not devoid of consultation. It is wrong to say that we have not consulted. I believe that in the last three stages of the bill, 246 hours have been dedicated to discussing the species at risk legislation.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate today on Bill C-5, the endangered species legislation, which I support.

I will begin by clarifying something said in previous discussions with members opposite. The point I was trying to make was that in the province of Ontario probably millions of farmers in very diverse farming situations have lived for 10 years with provincial endangered species legislation. None of the extreme problems the members opposite described have occurred.

Members opposite speak as though people in rural areas have no interest in maintaining the number of species that already exist, or that they do not suffer as the rest of us do when the number of species decreases.

The fact is that every time one species is lost almost inevitably other species are gone. This goes right down to bacteria which are critical parts of the web of life upon which we all depend.

A very good current example of this in rural areas is the problem we are having with bees. This does not come under the legislation, although in some ways I wish it did.

Being a rural member yourself, Mr. Speaker, I think you know that the predatory bee species that have been introduced are destroying our native bees. That is a simple example of a species being taken out in various regions. The ramifications of this for all of us, but for farmers in particular, are quite extraordinary. Let us think of this simply in terms of crops. If there are no bees many of our crops will not be pollinated and we will not be able to farm as we do at present. If there are no bees it will have other natural implications in the web of life because, as I have said before, other species are interrelated to bees as well as ourselves.

The loss of bees is critical for farmers and, I would argue, so is the loss of other species, in particular the general fact of the reduction in the number of species, which is going on because of the enormous number of human beings on the planet and the way we live on the planet. We should all be very conscious of that.

It has been demonstrated many times that one of the key reasons, if not the key reason, for the reduction in species is habitat. It often has nothing to do with species themselves but rather with where they live. Habitat is where species live, where they find food and where they raise their young. If there is no habitat there is no wildlife.

The main reason for habitat destruction is human behaviour. The place the species call home is either changed or lost in such a way that the species can no longer live there. This includes wetlands, forests, waters, open fields and agricultural terrain.

However at the same time we cannot always stop what we are doing. We human beings live on the planet as well. Will we tell a farmer not to plough or plant? Will we tell a resort or recreation operator to sit by during a nesting season? Will we tell mining companies that they cannot explore or forest companies that they must close down? That does not make sense either because that is a part of the way we live in the environment.

We need a balance, a balance between this natural environment upon which we depend and our way of life upon which we also depend.

After many years of study that balance is found in the proposed species at risk act and even further in the entire strategy for the protection of species at risk. The balance is found in the co-operative approach.

Stewardship and voluntary action are the first and best steps in protecting species' critical habitat. It is the partnerships we have formed and are continuing with large forestry and mining companies, with fishers, farmers and others, partnerships that are building conservation and stewardships in the way we all do business.

As we know from firsthand experience, most people want to do the right thing, and they do. Whether they live in rural or urban Canada, they want to do the right thing. We all want to do the right thing because we know that when a species is at risk or is lost, there are consequences to the whole ecosystem and we are part of that ecosystem. When a species is lost there can be further effects that are sometimes unpredictable and incalculable.

The loss of bees in the environment was an example of that. We know the immediate effects of the loss of bees on pollination and on crops but we do not know the full ramification of the loss of bees in a particular chain.

The biological diversity of the environment forms the support network for all human existence. The tiny organisms that contribute to clean water, the water that supports plant life and the plants that feed wildlife all form part of a system that supports us, our children and our families.

As members can see, we have no choice. We must act. We must ensure that no species becomes extinct because of human behaviour.

We also recognize and the proposed legislation is designed to ensure that there must be strong prohibitions in case the co-operative approach does not work. We recognized some time ago that this could in some cases involve a significant loss of income earned from the land.

That brings us to the issue of compensation. As we heard this afternoon, compensation is a very complex matter that requires careful consideration and creative thinking.

When it is necessary under the proposed law to prohibit the destruction of critical habitat or to make an emergency order to protect habitat, then the proposed legislation would allow for compensation to be paid for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact. The proposed act is clear that any compensation provided to anyone who suffers loss from such prohibitions will be fair and reasonable.

There has been much concern about compensation and much debate on it for eight or nine years. The intensity of the policy work around this matter has been great. As members can imagine, views, as we heard this afternoon, vary widely on this issue. In particular, rural Canadians have taken great interest in how the government will manage the issue of compensation under the proposed species at risk act. How much is enough? Who should get it? When? How would we decide how much to give and to whom?

Those are just a few of the many questions that have been asked and are still being asked. They have been researched over nine years. We have debated them over nine years. We have sought expert advice over nine years. We have read cases and we have consulted, some of which have been mentioned again here this afternoon, and we have reached several conclusions. The most important of these is that several years of practical experience is needed to implement the stewardship and recovery provisions of the proposed species at risk act and to deal with questions of compensation. Establishing a prescriptive approach to the legislation without the needed experience may well have the unintentional effect of excluding some very legitimate claims.

Concepts, such as fair market value, which have been shouted from the other side, are relevant considerations in quantifying the impact on a case by case basis, but determination of the level of compensation should not be limited to this concept.

As appropriate, the expertise of qualified valuation experts would be used to determine the adverse impact to the interest in property or in the quantification of loss of benefits that may result from not being able to carry out certain activities.

There will be general compensation regulations ready soon after the proposed act is proclaimed that specify the procedures to be followed for claiming compensation. These regulations will enable the use of the compensation provisions should an extraordinary situation arise. I mentioned the case in Ontario where we have had endangered species legislation for many years and such cases have not arisen.

Work on developing these regulations has begun. We must do it the right way. We want to get it right. We are working with the territories and provinces to do it. We are doing all of this in ways--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It being 5.15 p.m., pursuant to order made on Monday, June 10, 2002, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the bill now before the House.

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)