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.