Debates of June 11th, 2002

Immigration

[The Speaker]

The right hon. member for Calgary Centre is an experienced parliamentarian and knows that opinions on facts differ. What may be true to one side may seem less than true to another and vice versa because different people look at facts with a different point of view. Oodles of parties to one person might be fewer to someone else.

It is hard for the Chair to adjudicate on this kind of matter. Accordingly while I have no doubt that the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough in raising the issue has a disagreement with the Prime Minister, that was my point: there is a disagreement. How many parties there were was not stated so I cannot make a decision that the statement is accurate or inaccurate. While the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough might be perfectly correct in stating that there were two, how can the Chair possibly adjudicate in this kind of dispute when there was no statement as to how many there were from the other side?

The Chair is left in a position that is incapable of resolution and that is why I said this was a point of debate and not a point of order. It is not a matter of interpretation of a rule. It is a matter of interpretation of a set of facts which is in dispute. The Chair is stuck and I think the hon. member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough and the right hon. member for Calgary Centre who have a lot of experience in these matters would appreciate, understand and assist the Chair fully.

Privilege

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 48 to bring to the attention of the House a situation that is impeding my work as a member of parliament and the work of other members of parliament as well.

On the evening of June 4, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, we were convened as a committee of the whole to examine the estimates and priorities and planning for the Department of Public Works and Government Services.

With all due respect to the minister who never hesitated that evening to remind us that he was only nine days into his new portfolio, he nevertheless made a number of promises to provide members with information relating to questions on the estimates that had been raised that evening and that have been raised in question period since. I would like to reiterate the questions which have gone unanswered over the past week.

The Communications Canada organization states that it is headed by an executive director reporting to a cabinet committee. On June 4 I asked who chairs the committee, is the minister on the committee and who else in cabinet sits on that particular committee. In response the minister admitted that he chaired the cabinet communications committee but he also said he could provide to the committee of the whole later on that same evening the membership of the committee.

After a week we have received nothing. I do not think the minister made those promises lightly. After all, he is open and accountable.

In order for us to understand the process that was involved in signing and tendering contracts, we have to know all the players who oversaw the process. Therefore we need to know who are the members of that committee.

We assume that Mr. Gagliano chaired the cabinet committee in 2002 and prior when many suspect contracts were approved, but is he exclusively to blame or were there other cabinet ministers on that committee as well and who are they?

Again on the evening of June 4 I asked the minister to break down the dollar value of contracts that had passed through the process before he arrived to conduct the review. Two hundred of them had snuck through. They are in the pipeline and are supposedly beyond the reach of further scrutiny.

I asked him of the $18 million value he said those 200 contracts were worth that had gone through, how much had gone to Groupaction, Groupe Everest, Lafleur and other companies that were on their preferential list. The minister said:

Perhaps it would be acceptable to the hon. member if I filed it with the committee in writing rather than taking the time to read through all the statistics.

He later added:

Later on this evening, I will advise exactly when, Mr. Chairman, in just a few moments.

Those are his words. We have not seen this to this day. We have yet to receive that information.

The member for St. Albert asked if we could get a regional breakdown on a province by province basis of the $200 million spent on government advertising on those contracts. The minister told us that he would “provide the best breakdown I can as soon as possible”.

That evening the minister said he was interested in creating a more equitable distribution of this questionable program across the country but apparently he does not know what the distribution is now. He has had a week to look into it. He knows these questions were on the list that night.

The member for Edmonton Centre-East asked for details concerning the acquisition of Challenger aircraft. He asked when did the preliminary project review go to cabinet to be reviewed before it was taken out to industry for quotations let alone before it was being ordered. The minister said “I will see if I can find him further information”. Another week has gone by, the order is in process, but we have heard nothing.

Many other questions remain from all opposition parties. I would be glad to provide the minister with a list but I am sure his own minions are capable of going through the manuscript.

In Erskine May, 22nd edition, at page 63, under “Ministerial Accountability to Parliament”, the reference includes the following:

--ministers have a duty to Parliament to account, and be held to account, for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments...; ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament--

Under committee of the whole, Mr. Speaker, that is parliament:

--refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest,--

None of those issues would be outside of that public interest.

Accounting for the expenditure of taxpayers' money is of course the public interest. That is what we are trying to do here and what we were trying to do in committee of the whole for five hours.

Preventing embarrassment to the governing party as many recent disclosures are doing by withholding information--that is not being transparent-- or delaying disclosure--that is not being accountable--or hoping the opposition will go away does not serve the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, if you find this to be a prima facie question of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his enthusiasm. He is obviously trying to apply the rules with respect to privilege to an issue that he calls a point of order. The matter is rather all fouled up procedurally.

I would like to respond to the substance of his point. Earlier today he asked a question having to do with references to police authorities. It was followed up by a question from the member for Crowfoot. For the information of the House and to ensure that the hon. member heard the subsequent answer let me repeat for the record that I am aware of no other police references other than those that have already been commented on in the public domain. I want to be clear about that matter and to contribute to this discussion in the interests of transparency.

With respect to the questions that were asked a week ago tonight in committee of the whole on the estimates of the Department of Public Works and Government Services, my officials with me that evening were taking careful note of the various questions that were asked. Some of them, like the membership of the communications committee, are relatively straightforward matters. Others require a fair bit of research in order to provide the kind of accuracy and precision that the hon. member has requested. I can assure him that I have asked my officials to proceed through the full list of questions as rapidly as possible to provide the information to the hon. member and to all members of the House at the earliest possible date.

I am committed to transparency in this matter, as in all of my responsibilities in the House of Commons, and will try to provide complete answers to all of the questions that were asked a week ago tonight just as rapidly as I possibly can.

[The Speaker]

In the circumstances the Chair will take the matter under advisement and get back to the House if and when it is necessary to do so.

The minister has given certain undertakings and I am sure if they are not fulfilled in a timely way we will hear about it more. We will make a decision if necessary, but I am sure the diligence of the hon. members for Battlefords--Lloydminster and Crowfoot will ensure the Chair hears everything necessary on the subject and so will the Minister of Public Works and Government Services. His diligence of course is well known so I expect we will have a flurry of paper and perhaps argument. Who knows? Time will tell. The Chair will review the matter with care.

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

[The Speaker]

Before question period, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis had four minutes left to conclude his remarks.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was interrupted for question period, I had a few minutes left to conclude my presentation. I would like to discuss the current situation of our planet.

Indeed our planet today is shrinking. The forests of the Amazon are disappearing daily while fires are raging. There are clear-cuts with the encroachment of farms and human activity. The jungles of Asia, once the habitat of wildlife of immense diversity, are also shrinking and disappearing. I mentioned earlier in my speech how the Indian tiger is almost a relic of history due to encroachment of human activity.

Our forests worldwide are disappearing to the tune of 25 million acres a year. Desertification is occurring at a pace of 15 million acres a year. The deserts in Africa, Asia and South America are gaining ground. Even on our own North American continent in the United States southwest lands are drying up. Recently in Saskatchewan and Alberta we have had droughts and land that is becoming more and more attacked by global warming. In Canada alone 10 million hectares of forests have been clear-cut over the last decade.

All this means that the more we encroach on nature, the more wildlife disappears. This is the object of the bill, to decide choices. Do we want nature to be obliterated so that eventually human habitat, tar and gravel, roads and transportation, and more pollution takes place or do we want to preserve habitats, ecosystems that sustain living species and wildlife which are part of what we mean by quality of life?

The question we should conclude this debate with about endangered species is: What would be our planet without the wildlife species and the habitats and ecosystems that sustain their living? I believe it would be a poorer Earth. I believe that the human beings who inhabit this Earth would be the poorer for their absence.

I know that the endangered species bill is not the acme of all legislation. It has its faults. It is not as strong as many of us would wish. At the same time I suggest that it is a definite step forward. That is why yesterday I was pleased to vote for it and I will do so again today at third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I felt I had to jump to my feet to make some comment and ask the member a question.

The member knows that I have a high regard for him personally, but I must say that on the basis of what he just said, I have less of a regard for his understanding of what is going on in Canada. I will not comment on what may or may not be happening outside of the Canadian jurisdiction but I will comment on what is happening in Canada.

Canada's forests are growing annually. In British Columbia, for every tree that is harvested two are planted. In my constituency, which is in the Canadian Rockies where there is the finest big game hunting in North America, the people who are most concerned about the entire issue of species, the maintenance of species and enhancement are the people, my constituents, who are members of rod and gun clubs and other organizations like that, who go out and create a better habitat.

With the greatest respect for the member I suggest that it is the kind of misinformation that he has given to the House that drives people in urban areas to not understand what is going on in my constituency and in other rural constituencies.

We have a growing population of grizzly in my constituency. Yet I dare say that the member or other people like him would say that it is an endangered species so therefore we are not managing it right. In fact, it is a direct result of sound forest practices, which include clear-cut logging, that has opened up the forage for large mammals like the grizzly, elk, caribou and moose. That is why they are thriving.

On what basis is the member coming forward with the information he is giving to the House, which I know incontrovertibly as a member of the community of Kootenay--Columbia is factually inaccurate? It cannot be shown to be true on the ground.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I never spoke about Kootenay--Columbia as such. I spoke about Canada and the clear-cutting of 10 million hectares that has been going on for over 10 years.

The member might think that because I live in an urban area I do not know what goes on in the country. I have seen clear-cuts for myself. I worked for several years with the Algonquins of Barriere Lake. I will take the member to Laverendrye Park in Quebec and show him the huge clear-cuts that have happened there. Aboriginal people have had to block roads to stop the tremendous devastation of their land and over-cutting of their forestry. Perhaps the member has also forgotten how many people lay on the ground before fallow bunches and so forth to preserve the old growth forests in Clayoquot Sound and other places in British Columbia.

I used to live in British Columbia and I have seen hills being clear-cut. I know there are some areas where old trees have been cut by forestry companies.

There are many examples of huge clear-cuts of our land. If the member is interested I can show him an aerial photograph of Vancouver Island that my colleague from Davenport has which shows a tremendous change in the landscape as a result of the disappearing forests. I know that forestry companies say more trees are planted than are cut. I hope so but I have seen many clear-cuts as well. I have read what is going on. Yes, perhaps there are areas where moose and grizzly bears are thriving.

When I was parliamentary secretary for the minister of the environment one of the studies we did was on the disappearance of grizzly bears in Banff national park. We wanted to open up corridors so grizzlies would be preserved there. We wanted to preserve their habitat because of the encroachment of ski hills and human habitation.

To say that everything is wonderful in Canada is just closing our eyes to reality. If it is so wonderful and all our habitats are preserved, why then do we need endangered species legislation at the federal and provincial levels? Some 1,000 scientists, including 113 members of the royal society are asking us to preserve the habitats because there are too many endangered species, something like over 300 of them. If it were such a paradise, this would not happen. We should open our eyes to reality and do better. This is why I am pleased that this law is happening.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act.

I also spoke at first reading stage. Let me begin by saying that this legislation is but a drop of water in the ocean. And I am not playing on words, because I am a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans.

Bill C-5 involves more specifically three departments: Heritage Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada.

That bill is only a drop in the ocean because we must realize what the situation is right now. For example, we must recognize that greenhouse gas could bring about some serious disasters in various regions of our planet. Even if we want to create areas where we could protect species at risk, a much wider and serious problem will remain.

We should consider, among other things, the adoption of the Kyoto protocol, which the Department of the Environment and the Canadian government are still reluctant to ratify. We could also consider acid rain, which have a very major impact on our environment and could, in several areas, put our wildlife and some wildlife species at risk.

At present, with Bill C-5, the government is acting much like someone who, because his roof is leaking, is running around trying to find pots and pans to catch the leaks. The first thing we have to do is to ratify the Kyoto protocol and reduce greenhouse gases. An increase of only one or two degrees in the global temperature is enough to put thousands of species at risk and ultimately thousands of animal and plant species at risk. Whole habitats could be destroyed by a global warming of only one or two degrees. This is a very important aspect.

This is why it is vital to ratify the Kyoto protocol and even to improve it. At present, we face a very serious situation. We know that global warming produces disturbances and can cause major disasters.

Besides, the Canadian government seems really weak when it comes to negotiating with our neighbours to the south, who are the main source of greenhouse gases. These airborne gases cause acid rain. As we know, all regions in our country, especially the east, are in the path of the winds blowing from the United States. The Americans are sending us their pollution. Recently, the U.S. government announced that it intended to continue to use fossil fuels, including coal, which is one of the main sources of pollution and the biggest cause of acid rain.

Acid rain has a major impact on the environment, on trees, plants and endangered species. Ultimately, acid rain gets into the rivers and the oceans and destroys the environment. Greenhouse gases may even cause some species to disappear and threaten ecosystems on a global scale.

As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis said earlier, we must have a look at what is going on on a global scale to realize that very little has been done to protect the environment. The Department of the Environment has a major responsibility to help find a way to deal with endangered species.

Being a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans and knowing that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has and will have a huge responsibility with regard to species at risk under the bill before us, I must say that I am quite concerned about the possible results when we are talking about the protection of species at risk by that department.

This morning, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans tabled in the House a unanimous report about protecting the resource so that future generations can benefit from that particular resource.

Managing the fish resource in Quebec has been the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 1982. This has led to a major ecological disaster. In fact, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has not done its job.

The same goes for Newfoundland, as we discussed at length this morning at the news conference regarding the tabling of that report.

For centuries, Newfoundlanders and people from member countries of the European Economic Community enjoyed the resource that was found off our shores. For the past 10 years, that resource has been diminishing to the point where certain species could go extinct. It became necessary to impose moratoria to allow the resource to recover.

Despite these moratoria, the resource continues to dwindle, and there is reason to fear the worse for certain species. They are important species not only because they are indigenous species, but because communities that used to depend on them for their livelihood can no longer depend on them today.

That is a good example of an ecological disaster and the mismanagement by the entire federal government since it has taken over the management of that resource. That is why I am extremely concerned when the federal government brings us a bill like Bill C-5.

It is often said that the past is an indication of what the future holds in store. If I look to the past performance of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I am in no way reassured as to the future. I cannot trust the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to protect the resource. On the contrary, I think that it has mismanaged the resource so that it has been destroyed and is no longer available.

Entire communities, whether in Newfoundland, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands, the North Shore or the maritimes, who lived off an important resource are now the victims of a real catastrophe from a human and ecological point of view because, in all these regions, the moratoria imposed on groundfish, for example, means that thousands of people were left without jobs and hundreds of plants shut down.

We were speaking about the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of the Environment, and the Department of Canadian Heritage, which would be responsible for protecting species at risk.

Let us suppose that what the Canadian government and the department try to do is create small areas where so-called species at risk could be protected.

We cannot oppose the desire to protect such species, to help them survive.

I was the mayor of a municipality and, with the help of Canadian heritage, Environment Canada and Ducks Unlimited Canada, we created a park in order to protect certain species and help them survive and thrive. I repeat, however, that these were extremely limited areas.

When I look at the past performance of the Canadian government, I cannot trust it when it comes to protecting our environment and species at risk, and when it comes to protecting human health itself. There is no way that we can trust this government.

For the past 100 or so years, there has been a constant increase in the number of species disappearing from the face of the planet. For the past 100 or so years, this process has speeded up for a very simple reason. Since the industrial revolution, since the appearance of the new technologies, including cars, trains, planes and so on, the environment has taken a back seat. People went for the easy solution first: technology.

Some countries had to react quickly. I am thinking of England, for one, which has succeeded in cleaning up the pollution in the Thames. As a result, it has been able to regain some of the life it lost during the industrial revolution.

This was a major ecological catastrophe, and some species disappeared. Today efforts are being made to reintroduce them to the Thames, but this is not necessarily a possibility.

The industrial revolution left us with the heritage of science based solely on technology, with its objective of facilitating human existence, while partially destroying the environment at the same time.

Only recently have people begun to be aware of the great importance of the environment, and only recently has heavy pressure been brought to bear on governments to make them realize that, if we destroy the environment in which we live, there will be a price to pay. This is very important.

This week, we debated the pesticide legislation. I am thinking of what happened during the 1950s, with DDT in particular. This was a major problem, because we could have harmed our environment to a very considerable extent.

I remember how forests were sprayed with DDT and we were told there was no danger whatsoever to human beings. Afterward, we found out that this was totally wrong and that there was considerable danger, not just for humans, but also for our environment. I am sure there was a very serious impact on certain species.

Among the examples one might think of is the beluga in the St. Lawrence. This is a species we are trying to protect today, and would like to see multiply, but it has nearly disappeared.

Unfortunately, we have come to realize that pesticides have affected the Far North as well, although we used to think it was a very limited phenomenon. Scientists have discovered that northern species were affected by DDT although it had been spread in the south.

These products are the results of what I would call modern technology, because I make a distinction between technology and science. Modern technology has led us to commit some very significant abuses, and they continue to this day.

Concerning greenhouse gas, it is critical—and I go back to this once again—that the Canadian government ratify Kyoto and even improve on it in the near future. As I was saying earlier, global warming has already caused major changes and will cause more in the future.

Of course, we could consider, as we heard earlier, that the environment is not a priority in certain circles. Priority is given to the industry and to production, as opposed to our environment. In the short term, this is possible. However, in the long term, we will all pay the price.

There is another reason why we cannot agree with the bill before us. Like other bills put forward by the Canadian government, this bill does not in any way take jurisdictions into consideration.

The government essentially tells people “What you have done in the past—I am talking about three provinces and Quebec—we do not care about. We will not take it into account. We will have a blanket policy because only four of your governments have done work in this area. So we must extend this work to the entire country”.

Once again, it is the government's approach that seems totally wrong and unwarranted to me. It should take into consideration what has already been done; it should work with its partners; it should work not only with provincial partners, but also with local partners, because when it comes to the environment, public awareness is very important.

It is crucial to involve the public when it comes to the issue of the environment. If citizens are not involved, there cannot be real changes in the environment and the protection of species at risk, especially when areas that are created must be respected and considered in a particular way.

Again, the government is forgetting its partners. It is ignoring them and the good work they did on Bill C-5.

The minister will say that he consulted and heard various groups. It is not enough to consult them. The government must follow up on these consultations with agreements, it must take into consideration what was said. Unfortunately, there are very few things in Bill C-5 to show that the government took into account the representations that were made. It only took into consideration the suggestions that suited it, particularly as regards the supposedly Canada-wide organizations on the protection of species at risk and of the environment.

For these reasons, it will of course be difficult to support this bill.

Another thing that is difficult to accept is the limitation put by Bill C-5 on the true protection of species. As I said earlier, it is one thing to create restricted areas, but it takes major investments to ensure that an ecosystem can survive and thrive. Right now, the government's investments to protect our environment seem minor, in my opinion.

In conclusion, unfortunately, we cannot support this legislation for all these reasons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I note with a great deal of sadness that despite the fact that the party opposite talks about wanting to respect Canadians, 98% of whom say they want species at risk protected, it found it could not support the bill last night at report stage and is saying it will not support it tonight.

The hon. member opposite makes a very astute observation that greenhouse gas emissions and acid rain are indeed things that the federal government, in its role, needs to participate on, on behalf of all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, because pollution does not ask for a visa, whether or not it comes across our border.

The very issue that other colleagues in the Alliance Party take umbrage at is the fact that the legislation actually builds on the good laws and the great action not only of Canadians but of provinces and territories.

My challenge for my hon. colleague opposite would be to somehow reconcile these facts that the government agrees that the people of Quebec and the province of Quebec have done some very forward thinking things and that rather than usurp them we are looking to add on to it and bolster them, so that if there is a province, a territory or a people where that is not happening we would be there to backfill.

I am having a hard time reconciling what the member opposite says he desires and yet his inability to support, in this very good piece of legislation, exactly what he has asked for.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me answer to my colleague that it would be difficult for me to support this bill for two reasons, as I indicated in my remarks.

First and foremost, I think the Canadian government should not wait until a species is at risk before affording some protection. Essentially, there is nothing in this bill on what I would call the prevention principe. It is nowhere to be found in the bill.

Speaking about prevention, I could talk about our fish resources. There has been no prevention for 30 years, and our fisheries have been decimated. This is another case of species at risk. Not only did the government not take its responsibilities, but it also made the problem worse with the action it has taken in the last five years.

Take the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, for example. The government did not take its responsibilities. It did not demand that its partners stop overfishing in the Grand Banks area. This is but one example.

The hon. member is asking me how I could support the government. Why am I not prepared to support it? Because there is no point. It is that simple. There is no point, because it will not take its responsibilities anyway.

Another case in point is the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gases. Will the government give a clear signal and ratify the protocol? We do not know. Why is it reluctant to ratify a protocol that is a strict minimum to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? I say it is a minimum because pollution will keep increasing and could endanger human life on this planet.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to split my time allocation with another member from the government side.

I am speaking today in support of the species at risk legislation, a piece of legislation that has been, believe it or not, nine years in the making. Throughout that nine years much has happened. The provinces and territories have joined the federal government in making a strong commitment under the accord for the protection of species at risk.

We have moved forward on the habitat stewardship program to assist with co-operative and partnership efforts on the ground in species recovery and habitat protection. We have also established the ecogifts program, which encourages land donations. We also have recovery programs underway. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, has assessed more than 233 species against new criteria, a daunting task that was attacked with vigour and with good results. We have not stood by waiting for this piece of legislation.

However, now the time has come to put in place the law that will reinforce these many different actions of the past nine years. There are a number of precedents in the proposed species at risk act, but in my mind the most compelling is the rigorous and independent scientific process to assess species, operating at arm's length from the federal government.

The proposed species at risk act provides for a listing system based on sound science. It is the job of scientists to provide the determination of what species are at risk. Governments, though, must decide what actions to take on the scientific list because there could be major social and economic impacts. That is why the Government of Canada will make the decisions regarding the application of the prohibitions proposed under the bill. Let me explain how this will work.

By asking specific questions COSEWIC determines if a species should be assessed. These include determining if the species is native to Canada. Then a subcommittee of specialists develops a list of species to be considered for the assessment. When a decision has been made to assess a species, a status report is commissioned. These are very detailed reports that can take up to two years to prepare. COSEWIC then uses the status report to assign the species to one of seven categories: extinct; extirpated, which means the species is no longer present in the wild in Canada; endangered; threatened; of special concern; and species that are not at risk because there are data deficiencies.

The COSEWIC assessments are at the very core of Bill C-5. The completed assessments are presented to the Minister of the Environment and the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. The COSEWIC list is also placed in the public registry established under the legislation.

Let us look at this process. Clearly scientists and scientists alone will make decisions about the assessments of species and where they should be placed on the list of those at risk.

The weight of the COSEWIC assessments is further enhanced by the fact that the organization is recognized legally in the legislation as part of the assessment and listing process. This is a huge step forward. Clearly the assessment will be done at arm's length from the government. It will not be subjected to any economic or social pressures. The COSEWIC decisions and findings will be published in a public registry for everyone to see at any time. This will be totally transparent.

When the government decides to add species to the legal list, then a number of provisions in the proposed species at risk legislation kick in. For instance, the bill contains automatic prohibitions against the killing or harming of individual species and the harming of their residences. It also stipulates that there would be mandatory recovery strategies put together, within specific timeframes, on recovery of the species from its dangerously low numbers.

Finally, and just as important, the process under the proposed law allows for authority to take emergency action to protect habitat.

We can see that the decisions involved are extremely serious. They involve both the economy and some of our social structures in a carefully balanced manner. For that reason the elected representatives of the government will make the decision on what constitutes the legal list. We have been unequivocal on this for some time and we know this is the prudent approach. Many scientists know this is the right approach and, having understood this process, agree with the government.

However, the work of COSEWIC will not end there. There are timelines for the development of the ministerial response to a COSEWIC assessment. That will happen within 90 days and the minister is fully accountable to respond. Every single year the minister will report to parliament on each COSEWIC assessment and the response the minister has made. This will happen one by one on every species put forward for protection. If this is not transparency, if this is not accountability and if this is not a fair, science based system, then I really do not know what is.

The public registry is but another example. Anyone will be able to track government action on species that have been found to be at risk following COSEWIC's scientific assessment.

The protection of endangered or threatened species is a responsibility that the government takes very seriously. We agree that COSEWIC species assessments must be addressed in a timely manner and the government is taking steps to do just that. There are 233 species in schedule 1 of the bill. This means that statutory obligations apply on proclamation of the act to 233 species that have been assessed by COSEWIC using the new and updated criteria. Each and every one of them, without exception, will be reported on. This is a very significant indication of the federal commitment on species at risk.

The assessment and listing of species is a perfect partnership: the scientists with the expertise to determine the threats and status and the elected members of parliament who will move forward on actions that address those threats and their status. It is a partnership that will work well, but it is not the only partnership.

Throughout the entire strategy for the protection of species at risk, which includes the bill, the accord and the habitat stewardship program, there are other partnerships that can be found. For example, they can be found in the work between a farmer and a conservation group on the loggerhead shrike. They are found between fishers and sightseers with respect to the protection of whales. They are found between scientists and government in listing and assessment. They are found between mining companies and forestry companies and municipal governments with provinces and territories. Partnerships are important to this strategy because they are what will work.

The proposed legislation backs up this process with strong prohibitions, but it depends first and foremost on co-operation. As I have said before, this is the approach that is required and that will work. We know that because we have seen what happens when the heavy hand of the law comes down first. From the beginning over nine years ago, this fundamentally Canadian approach has finally achieved a consensus for action. This is the strategy we have formed.

The missing piece is the species at risk act. It is time now to fill in the final building block and get on with the job of creating a sustainable and natural legacy for future generations.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. He mentioned the nine years. One of my first duties in the House was to serve on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. One of the pieces of legislation we were considering, which was not called Bill C-5 in those days, was the first round in the attempts to get an endangered species act passed. I remember well that in those two years we were particularly interested in the role of aboriginal local knowledge as well as the role of science. I am very pleased to see that incorporated in the bill.

Now, as the member said, nine years later, four ministers later, four parliamentary secretaries later and innumerable MPs like me later, we are close to a result here. I would like the member to address the point that there were at least two contentious issues, it seemed to me. One was this question of science and scientists. My understanding is that the scientists' role is now written into the legislation, with the political control the member described. At the other end, there was the question of compensation, particularly for farmers. There is great concern about that. My understanding now, as he was explaining to us, is that there is an element of compensation that can give some security to our farmers. Compensation might take various forms.

I would be grateful if the member could explain to us those two things and tell us something more about the role of the scientists and something more about the compensation component, which we are glad to see now built into the legislation.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the bill to which my hon. colleague referred was introduced as Bill C-65 several years ago. I was not here then but I have heard members debating the issues referred to by my hon. colleague.

First, with respect to scientific knowledge, there is absolutely no question that under the bill the entrenchment of COSEWIC, which consists of scientists who would gain their legitimacy not only through the legislation but through the council they sit on, would add a balanced, even-handed, measured, prudent and arm's length role to provide balance and accountability within government.

As I have made clear, the balancing act would be important. The concept of delegation which has been used on occasion could not be exercised in an ad hoc manner. The House could not delegate away its responsibility under the act. Nor should it. It would be accountable for checks and balances in the system and for doing what is right for the sustainability of our natural environment.

Second, the input of first nations has been built into the act. Bill C-5 would establish a legitimate advisory board to take into consideration aboriginal people's historic knowledge and understanding of the environment.

Third, compensation is probably the most difficult issue the committee grappled with. I congratulate its members for doing so. It was my first experience of seeing the cut and thrust of genuine debate in an attempt to find consensus on issues.

The compensation regime would be experience based. In this sense it would break new ground. It would attempt to emphasize the concept of stewardship in a manner that did not require the expropriation of lands or rights. It would develop partnerships with those who would be affected because they too have a natural legacy we all wish to preserve.

We will go through the bill carefully rather than in an arbitrary manner. We will learn from our experience and build a regime that is fair, balanced, measured and guarantees a sustainable future for our natural environment.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, I will focus my remarks on the opportunities of the proposed species at risk act, Bill C-5.

As members probably know, Bill C-5 is effective legislation that would help prevent wildlife in Canada from becoming extinct. It would also provide for the recovery of species at risk. The proposed legislation reflects more than eight years of consultation with provinces, territories, aboriginal peoples, industry, non-governmental organizations and other interested Canadians.

It is balance that provides effective legislation. It is stated within the bill that science would be the first consideration in the listing and recovery of species. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, would list species at risk independently of government.

However the role of traditional knowledge is no less important than that of natural science. It has guided the aboriginal people for decades and indeed centuries in their conservation and stewardship of the land and their relationship with the species that exist on it.

As members may know, in many of the territories where aboriginal people are the main inhabitants there has been a natural balance. There has never been a pillage or complete obliteration and extinction of a species because the existence of the people depends on them.

I will focus my remarks on the opportunities in the bill. The way opportunities have been seized in developing the legislation is quite a story. It is a story we have ignored in a long debate that seems to have only two sides and no middle. I will therefore highlight some of the opportunities the bill presents and some of the roads that have been taken. An important opportunity has been seized and new ground has been broken in the involvement of aboriginal peoples and the treatment of aboriginal traditional knowledge. So it should be.

My hon. colleague from Churchill River in Saskatchewan, a member of parliament who is a Cree from that area, brought forward amendments that speak to two issues. First, he proposed to amend the motion dealing with the proposed national aboriginal council on species at risk. His amendment proposed that the minister:

“shall establish a Council, to be known as the National Aboriginal Council on Species at Risk, consisting of six representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada selected by the Minister based upon recommendations from aboriginal organizations that the Minister considers appropriate. The role of the Council is to

(1) advise the Minister on the administration of this Act;

(2) provide advice and recommendations to the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council.”

The second amendment the hon. member put forward was important because it emphasized the need to incorporate science and traditional knowledge. The amendment focused on:

“(c) methods for sharing information about species at risk, including community and aboriginal traditional knowledge, that respect, preserve and maintain knowledge and promote their wider application with the approval of the holders of such knowledge, with other governments and persons;”

All that is to say we need to balance the information. It should be incorporated and integrated to reflect the relationship aboriginal peoples have had with the species that would be listed and the lands on which they live. The lands and waters on which a large of number of species at risk depend are inhabited and managed by aboriginal peoples. Many species at risk such as wood bison are valued by Canada's first peoples for their ecological role. They are of importance both culturally and for their use as a traditional food source.

It may come as a surprise to many people that migratory birds and large mammals such as moose, caribou, bison, muskox and deer are still harvested and used by aboriginal people as a regular part of their diet. When aboriginal people met with diabetes and many of the illnesses that befall them these days it was because of a change in diet. They had moved from rural regions where they used these animal species as their main diet to areas where people uses other foods that had different supplements and preservatives. This has been evident in the health of aboriginal people.

There was an opportunity and we all took it. We took it in partnership with Canada's aboriginal peoples to ensure their participation in the development of this law was unprecedented.

I will explain. In the four years prior to the tabling of the proposed species at risk act discussions were held with all the national aboriginal organizations and most of the regional aboriginal organizations and first nations across the country. Emerging from the discussions was the Aboriginal Working Group on Species at Risk. The group, representing aboriginal organizations, was established in 1998 and continues to meet on a regular basis.

Once again it was a matter of opportunity. The aboriginal working group has provided advice on the development and implementation of the proposed species at risk act. It has provided a significant advisory capacity by helping us fully understand the issues, needs and capacities of aboriginal peoples to help in the protection of species at risk. One result of this hard work is that the proposed act would explicitly recognize the role of aboriginal peoples in the conservation of wildlife. This was more than a matter of opportunity. We came to understand that it was a matter of necessity.

I will further explain how the work of the aboriginal working group has helped the government understand the opportunities of the proposed legislation. Under the bill before us aboriginal traditional knowledge would have to be considered in decision making. There would be strong requirements to co-operate with aboriginal people in recovery efforts. The government is supporting the establishment of a national aboriginal council on species at risk. I will discuss each of these accomplishments and seized opportunities in turn.

The fundamental basis on which decisions are made would be altered by the inclusion of traditional and community knowledge as decision making criteria. In the past assessing the status of wildlife species and making wildlife management decisions such as setting quotas and determining access to wildlife was often based solely on scientific information. Aboriginal traditional knowledge is the knowledge base of the indigenous peoples of Canada who depend on the land for their long term survival. Through observation and experimentation, holders of this knowledge continue to develop a dynamic and innovative knowledge base of the land, the environment and the species within.

Like aboriginal peoples, we derive results through observation and experimentation. What is different is way the interpretation and recording is done. Scientists are trained to interpret results according to set standards in a written form, which facilitates communication and understanding in the academic community. Aboriginal traditional knowledge holders use different methods to interpret results for presentation to their communities in an oral form. We would be losing the chance to paint the fullest picture possible if we did not do it both ways. This is why the proposal includes this kind of knowledge.

I spoke about the amendments my hon. colleague from Churchill River in northern Saskatchewan put to the bill. The proposed species at risk act would explicitly require COSEWIC to consider aboriginal traditional knowledge in its deliberations. It would be foolhardy not to. These people have survived thousands of years on the land without any formal education in most parts. The Crees of James Bay, the Dene and Inuit in the Northwest Territories, Yukon, Nunavut and over into Alaska, and the Inuvialuit in my area have lived with the muskox, seal, walrus and beluga, species which are all still in abundance, for thousands of years. They have created that balance. They did not use university educations, degrees or pure science to determine how to conserve and provide proper stewardship. It was their lifestyle. The way they interpreted traditional knowledge guided their activities.

The proposed species at risk act would explicitly require COSEWIC to consider this traditional knowledge. It would provide for the establishment of a subcommittee on aboriginal traditional knowledge to facilitate the consideration of such knowledge in decision making.

Efforts to set up this committee are already under way led by the aboriginal working group and supported by COSEWIC. These are opportunities that we cannot turn away. We cannot lose these important additions to the body of work already under way on species at risk.

There is another opportunity in the stronger requirements for aboriginal involvement in recovery efforts. The bill contains a requirement for co-operation with aboriginal organizations in the preparation of all the key recovery documents, strategies, action plans and management plans.

When I think about wood bison I think of Frank Laviolette, an elder from Fort Smith, Northwest Territories who does not have university training, but has pre-eminent knowledge on wood bison and can tell us everything about that species and how for over 50 years he has lived with the species and worked with it. We have said for nearly nine years that we share in the responsibility for protecting wildlife. Perhaps no one demonstrates or represents a commitment to that responsibility more than Canada's aboriginal people.

The establishment of a national aboriginal council on species at risk under the legislation would set into law a partnership which has already produced many positive results.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the discussions on the involvement of aboriginal knowledge in the legislation go back to the very beginning of the consideration of the legislation. I recall particularly the member for what was then Nunatsiaq, Jack Anawak, who was a member of the committee, introducing some of the things that the secretary of state has just been talking about.

She mentioned particularly the wood bison. Her own riding, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon between them represent over 40% of this country. In terms of the federal legislation a group of the species involved include migratory species. These are species which overwinter somewhere in the south, sometimes in South America, but which survive by nesting in the territories, in 40% of the country which is the north.

The people she is talking about and their knowledge is particularly important for federal legislation because it deals with migratory species and they depend on the territories for their nesting grounds. Would the member comment and elaborate a little bit on that?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of my hon. colleague and his inquiry about the whole issue of how the legislation would impact on areas that cover 40% of the geography of Canada and the role that different individuals have played.

Over nine years there have been many people involved. I think of the late Mr. Jim Bourque, one of the best wildlife officers we had in the Northwest Territories who later sat on some of the free trade and export boards because of his expertise. Mr. Bourque was a reflection of many individuals, including my former colleague, Mr. Anawak, and Willie Littlechild, who was a Conservative member from the other side, and others as well.

Many leaders who were not members of parliament had some influence on the process that contributed to it. Two points were always raised: first, there had to be some kind of instrument for representation of aboriginal people, the working group is a reflection of that; and second, the traditional knowledge had to be incorporated. Even if we talked to people on the round table on the environment and the economy, the sustainable development committees, they always referred to traditional knowledge and the importance of place.

This would be vacuous legislation if it did not include a provision for those two things, so there is a lot of gratitude for many of the individuals who have their expertise on polar bear. Canada along with the Northwest Territories has many conventions, including one on polar bears and one on migratory birds. Canada is not new at this. We are good at this. We have a track record to show we are proven conservationists. We are natural at that. We live with habitat that is plentiful, unlike other countries in the world that do not have many of the species we do.

I thank my colleague for his comments. I also thank those individuals out there who will not get the kind of accolades they deserve. I think these are two important elements. I think all those individuals should be thanked. I also want to thank the member for Kitchener Centre for her work. She has done an outstanding job. It has been a perilous road on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I am pleased to rise in the House to participate in the debate regarding Bill C-5, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species at risk in Canada. I would also like to mention I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands. I am sure in hills and grasslands there will be lots of wildlife.

I would like to compliment my colleagues, the hon. members for Red Deer and Skeena, and staff members Julie-Anne Miller and Paul Wilson for their hard work. They have a done a great deal of work and research on this bill and the members have done a lot of work along with other members in the House and in committee.

The Canadian Alliance supports the endangered species legislation based on co-operation, science, respect for private property, transparency and accountability. The government invoked closure on this legislation. This is serious legislation that does not have to be rushed. It will impact many people and species in Canada.

The legislation fails to create a balance of the interests of all stakeholders. The act would not work without guaranteeing fair market value compensation for property owners, farmers, ranchers and resource users who suffer losses. The act would make criminals out of law-abiding people who may unknowingly and inadvertently harm endangered species or their habitat. Criminal liability must require intent.

The government did not consult the provinces. We need co-operation, not confrontation with the provinces. Bill C-5 would give the federal government power to impose its law on provincial lands. The government ignored the environment committee's recommendations. This is another example of top down control from the Prime Minister.

Currently the government may provide compensation on a discretionary basis, case by case. We believe compensation must be mandatory. This would ensure that landowners and resource users are friends rather than foes of species.

Adequate compensation is the incentive to co-operate otherwise landowners would have no reason to co-operate because they are being asked to bear a disproportionate share of the cost of protecting endangered species. This is critical for saving the species.

The bill says the compensation should be only for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact arising from the application of the act. What does extraordinary impact mean? The minister should have the courage to clarify this. Instead of coming clean the minister pleads that compensation is a complex issue and more time is needed to study it properly. No cost estimates are worked out for different compensation scenarios. This contributes to great uncertainty and reinforces the perception that the government environmental programs are brought forward with no planning or preparation.

A due process and a clear commitment for fair and reasonable compensation must be developed and debated before the bill is passed. This has not been done yet. The government is infamous for its big ideas and bad planning, for big talk and no action. This legislation has been in the government's red book since 1993 and every red book afterwards. This is another broken promise.

The Liberals have a poor track record in protecting endangered species over which they have direct control, such as Atlantic cod, Pacific salmon and many others. Approximately 100 species have been added to the endangered species list since the Liberals first introduced endangered species legislation in the 35th parliament. I was hoping that the government would address a good portion of the 87 amendments proposed by the Canadian Alliance to improve the bill.

The Canadian Alliance succeeded in moving the government on a great number of issues, such as listing, transparency, accountability, notification of landowners, species and critical habit protection. We were entirely ignored on major issues, such as compensation, criminal liability and socioeconomic considerations. Pressure from the Canadian Alliance succeeded in getting a reverse onus system set in place.

Another victory won by the Canadian Alliance in committee dealt with improvements to the transparency and accountability measures in the bill. We succeeded in putting measures and timelines in place requiring the government to give its reasons for listing decisions and to put these in the public registry. Another small victory won by the Canadian Alliance in committee dealt with provisions that would require the government to notify landowners and lessees about the presence of species at risk on their property. In this way farmers and ranchers would know they had to be careful.

We are asking that the costs of protecting our species at risk be spread out over the entire population of Canada. We make this point because we feel it is unfair to ask farmers and landowners to pay the costs of conservation. Their livelihood depends on the conservation of Canada's natural resources, including our species at risk.

After all, if it is socially desirable, then let society pay for it rather than the farmers alone. As it stands now, society would not pay for it, only the farmers and ranchers. This is just not fair.

We fought hard for full or fair and reasonable compensation but narrowly lost the vote 8 to 6 in committee. The amendment that passed made reference to fair and reasonable, but compensation still remained discretionary. Though we had a small win, the development of regulations for compensation has been changed from discretionary to mandatory. Clear provisions for fair market value compensation must be in the bill, not simply in the regulations. We can debate bills in the House but we cannot debate regulations.

The minister told the standing committee last year that he was proposing to develop general compensation regulations to be ready soon after the legislation was proclaimed. In other words, the minister probably had the regulations drafted and sitting on his desk. Why would he not table them now so that we can all judge whether his idea of compensation will be fair and reasonable to all Canadians? It is a simple, common sense question.

The United Nations convention, which Canada is a signatory to, recognizes that costs must be equitably borne by everyone. We expect the same principle to apply in Bill C-5 and that protection of endangered species be recognized as a common good.

There are a lot of examples of compensation working in other jurisdictions. For example, Tasmania, the European Community, the United Kingdom, Scotland, Switzerland and many other nations are working on the very principle that we are asking the government to invoke in the legislation.

The Canadian Alliance is committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and endangered species. Farmers, ranchers and other property owners want to protect endangered species too but should not be forced to do so at the expense of their livelihood. We must create a balance.

Criminal liability must require intent. Bill C-5 would make endangered species a threat to property owners. In 1996 the national accord for the protection of species at risk was a step in the right direction. Instead, Bill C-5 would give the federal government power to impose its laws on provincial lands. Instead of working together with the provinces and property owners the federal government is introducing uncertainty, resentment and distrust.

The government has amended Bill C-5 to reverse many of the positions taken by its own Liberal MPs on the environment committee. This is another example of top down control from the Prime Minister's Office and again shows contempt for members of parliament.

Finally, unless the bill provides for mandatory compensation and stops criminalizing unintentional behaviour, it will not provide protection for endangered species. We will not support the bill until these amendments are made to it.

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 between all 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 consent for the following motion:

That during the take note debate in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 28 later this day, no dilatory motions, no quorum calls or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

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

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Surrey Central is setting a bad example of fearmongering that must be dealt with.

First of all, he was not a member of the committee and he has not participated in the work of the committee, but he comes to third reading and makes assertions about the effect of the bill which are not substantiated, I would submit, by reality. The member concluded his remarks by saying that the bill will create uncertainty, resentment and distrust. What the bill is attempting to achieve is if anything exactly the opposite.

If the member were to take the trouble to read the legislation that is coming through, he would see how much attention this legislation actually pays to the concept of co-operation with the sectors involved and co-operation with the provincial and territorial governments. The bill is peppered with recommendations and sections that take into account the jurisdiction of provincial and territorial governments.

The bill sets out a number of steps that are required in order to rebuild the species that are in danger to the point of being extirpated.

The bill establishes mandatory habitat only on federal land.

On compensation, I am glad that the member for Surrey Central has taken into account the fact that the words fair and reasonable compensation are in the bill. I would like him to take into account the fact, as corroborated this morning by the Minister of the Environment, that the compensation process is one that will take into account individuals affected, case by case. These are his own words.

Therefore, it seems to me that if the official opposition wants to play a responsible role in the House it should do so by criticizing the bill on substance where it sees fit to do so, but it should also recognize the positive features of the bill. Does the hon. member for Surrey Central not agree that this is actually the role of the opposition?

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

Mr. Speaker, I highly respect the hon. member who just spoke. He has been a member of this House for a very long time and is the chair of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

I had an opportunity to work with this member on the committee when we were studying the regulations on pest control. When this committee studied the endangered species legislation my responsibilities were changed. I never claimed that I was a member of that committee when it studied the endangered species act, but I had an opportunity to work with the member and many other members on the committee when they studied the pest control regulations and prepared their report. I appreciate the hard work that was done by members of the committee.

The member asserted that the official opposition is fearmongering. I have to tell the member that the truth always hurts. Our senior critic for the official opposition and various other members have spoken up, and members of the House will note that reasonable and fair compensation is the key issue in this bill. The government never had the guts to say “Here is fair compensation and we will follow the same compensation principles that are followed in other jurisdictions”. Canada is a signatory to the United Nations convention and we are not incorporating the principles in Bill C-5. Also there is a lot of uncertainty left because reasonably fair compensation is not included in the bill at all.

There are other things that are going to create resentment and distrust. We are saying this because it is true. Resentment and distrust will be created because law-abiding people, those who do not have any criminal intent and who unknowingly, inadvertently, or innocently destroy the habitat of any species, will be criminally charged. What about mens rea? Why is the government ignoring the mens rea principle and not incorporating it in the bill? I would say that resentment is natural when there is no compensation and when the government is turning ordinary, law-abiding citizens into criminals. Finally, on distrust, the government did not negotiate with the provinces.

Also, my last point, very quickly--