Reed Elley

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island North.

I rise to debate an issue which should not have to be raised in the House. It reflects the sad state of affairs in which the country finds itself. Leadership begins at the top. If the government fails to give strong direction in areas such as we are discussing today, it will lead us more and more into the grey area of moral fog. I will now turn to the motion before the House.

Most of us in this Chamber are parents. Many, including myself, are grandparents and I think there may even be a handful of us who are privileged to be called great-grandparents. Speaking as a parent of eight children, let me state categorically that I can see nothing any more important than the protection of our children. Simply put, we need to protect innocent children from predatory adults.

It is well recognized that children are physically maturing at an earlier age, but they are still children. Young persons may look like they are older than they actually are. They may dress older than they actually are. For good or for bad, they may have more worldly knowledge than generations of the past, but above all, they are still children.

Unfortunately just because a 13 year old boy or girl looks older does not mean they are emotionally mature enough to engage in sexual activity. They are not able to make sexual decisions with full knowledge along with the emotional and mental maturity that must be a part of this decision making process.

So we come to the intent of today's motion. I believe strongly that we have to protect our children with an even higher age of consent. There are predatory adults in the world who would like to have sex with anyone at any age.

Nothing can be more important to us than our children. Not only are they the future of our country, they are also a present reality, a reflection of our current society and where our society is today. They are a mirror held up to our own faces. Perhaps if we do not like what we see, we need to take a long, careful look at ourselves as a society.

Yesterday some Liberals attempted to clarify what the age of consent was. They were correct when they stated that historically it always has been 14 years of age, but that there was a provision in section 153 of the criminal code to protect children under the age of 18 from sexual exploitation. A member opposite then stated “so we fear that tomorrow's motion by the opposition would have the effect of lowering the age of consent”. This is a complete fabrication and a lowly attempt to justify the government's complete inaction and lack of protection for our youth in this area.

The truth is that the lowest age of consent is clearly set out in section 150.1 of the criminal code and it is the age of 14. Under the age of 14 it is no defence for the accused to say that the complainant consented to the act. Over the age of 14 the accused can claim that the complainant consented to the act.

Simply put, the official opposition wants to raise the age of consent from 14 to 16. Any offences involving 16 to 18 year old children would remain offences, as there would be no changes to those parts of the criminal code.

The section to which the dazed and confused Liberal member was referring was section 153. That section clearly defines a young person as someone between the ages of 14 and 18.

Let me be perfectly clear. The opposition motion does not want to lower the age range. We want to raise the lower end of that range from 14 to 16.

Only when we as parliamentarians have taken every reasonable step to protect our children can we rest. However as technology changes, we unfortunately see some people taking advantage and abusing that technology. When that happens we as parliamentarians must remain vigilant. We must do all we can to protect our greatest resource, our children.

We know that predators will attempt to lure children through direct contact on the Internet involving chat rooms and instant message programs. Predators are typically pedophiles who attempt to lure children off line to harm or molest them.

There is wide support for the actions that the official opposition has brought forward for debate. The Saskatoon StarPhoenix reported that Bernie Eiswirth of the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers stated recently that we need a crackdown on pedophiles who lure children online. He is quoted as stating that there are statistics that show one in four youths have been sent pornography over the Internet by a stranger. Twenty-five per cent of our children are being exposed to the smut and abominable depiction of the vile acts that come out of some of these depraved minds. Surely this cannot be acceptable to the members of the House.

Mr. Eiswirth continued on to state that one of the suggestions the Saskatchewan Federation of Police Officers recommended was to raise the age of sexual consent from the current 14 to 16 years of age.

This important distinction is also backed by the provincial justice ministers. It has been reported by the media that a resolution was passed to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to at least 16 at their latest annual meeting on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately their decision was lost in the media frenzy surrounding the terrorist attacks of that very same day.

The age of consent in the United States ranges from 14 to 18 depending upon the state. In Australia and New Zealand it is 16. It has been said that with Canada's age of consent currently at 14 years of age, this is nothing less than a gift for sexual predators.

Is this the reputation that we want? Is this how Canada wants to be seen by the world, as a haven for child sexual predators? Heaven help us if that is the case.

I have deeply held convictions with regard to this matter. The Christian scriptures are very important to me. In the book of Mark, chapter 9, verse 42, Jesus said:

And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe in Me to fall, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were cast into the sea.

Unless we do something to restrict the actions of sexual predators and the spread of child pornography, the millstone which they place around the neck of our society will surely strangle us, choking the very life out of our children, forcing them into the shadows of darkness where truth and beauty can no longer exist.

We as the parliamentarians of Canada have an opportunity today. We can correct and add strength to the laws of the country. What are the laws of the land for except to protect its citizens? We in the House of Commons are the lawmakers of Canada. One of the things we need to do is to fill loopholes in the law when they become apparent to us.

We know that we have one of the lowest age of consent laws in the world. We can change that. We know that the pain and suffering of children from adult sexual predators is incalculable and lasts a lifetime. We know that provincial attorneys general and the Canadian Police Association are supportive of raising the age of consent to at least age 16. Finally, we know that the Department of Justice and the previous minister of justice are also supportive of this move.

What are we waiting for? Do we like what we see around our children and the kind of environment in which they are growing up? Mr. Speaker, if you are anything like me or the people I have talked with, you have grave concerns. We can do something about those concerns. Let us take action today.

Let us protect our children through whatever means we can. Our children are our future. We cannot allow our children to fall into harm's way. For the sake of the children, let us protect our children from predatory adults.

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment and then ask my hon. colleague a question. From time to time today in the debate, some of our hon. members across the floor have I think deliberately tried to cloud the main issue of which we are speaking by inserting extraneous materials into the debate.

The hon. member of while I am speaking there are crosses burning in St. George fame said that she had concerns about the ramifications of passing legislation pertaining to the subject because it might prohibit doctors from graphically sharing with children the kinds of things that must take place as they develop sexually, precautions they should take in terms of sexual intercourse and that sort of thing. She also made the observation that if we went down this road, perhaps it would even mitigate against a teenager writing about her sexual fantasies in a diary or talking about her sexual encounters with her boyfriend.

These kinds of things are being raised in the House which deliberately obscure the very serious problem we have in this country when it comes to the exploitation of our children by sexual predators.

Let us cut to the chase. What does my hon. colleague see as the real issue here and what is his reaction to some of these comments?

[Supply, April 23rd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am the father of eight children. I have a 33 year old daughter who 20 years ago was 13. I have an 11 year old daughter who will be 13 in a couple of years. I have a 15 year old daughter who was 13 a couple of years ago. I do not know whether hon. members who just spoke have children of that age in their homes, but I do.

I have seen over the course of 20 years our society force young people to grow up too quickly. The media, fashion magazines and television have an incredible effect upon our young people. I have seen them forced to grow up physically. The natural changes that go on in their bodies seem to happen at an earlier age. Then everything else around them forces them to grow up in that way.

I have to say as a father that I have not seen an accompanying environment in our society that helps them to grow up emotionally so they can cope with some of the horrible stuff that may come their way because of a drift that I call moral laxity. It has allowed this kind of filth to go on in our society and is bombarding our children at every turn.

I cannot for the life of me see why anybody, any member of the House, would be against us having the kind of debate that we are having today. It may result at some point in the government bringing legislation that would enable our judiciary, social workers, court officials, and police departments to have some kind of legal recourse to stop the sexual predators who are preying upon our young people at an earlier and earlier age.

Why would members vote against something like this when we know this is going on in our society? If we do not do something about it, it makes my job as a father, as a parent of teenage children, more difficult and I believe I speak for many parents in this country.

[Species at Risk Act, April 16th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to join in this important debate on Bill C-5, the species at risk bill. I believe it is important that I go on record to state categorically that legislation on species at risk is of course extremely important. We must be good stewards of the land, the water and the air that God has given to us. Along with my fellow members of the Canadian Alliance, I am committed to protecting and preserving Canada's natural environment and, of course, endangered species.

That is why it is with a certain degree of sadness that I must say it is so unfortunate that the legislation actually falls short of making any kind of sense. There are many aspects that cause me great concern. Of primary concern, of course, is that I do not believe that this act will actually work as it plays itself out unless it guarantees fair and reasonable compensation for property owners and resource users who will suffer losses under this present legislation. The farmers, ranchers and other property owners who also want to protect endangered species should not be forced to do so at the expense of their own livelihoods.

There are several issues specific to the Group No. 4 amendments, which simply do not meet the standard of parliamentary democracy that all members of the House should be upholding. Committees are intended to be masters of their own destiny and rightly so. However, when the environment minister sets aside the committee's recommendations and ignores its deliberations I believe that something is very wrong with the current state of the House of Commons.

Motions Nos. 6, 16, 17 and 20 deal with aspects of the national aboriginal committee. The standing committee had originally intended to create a national aboriginal council, but the government instead wants to call it a committee. This seems to border on semantics and therefore we have several amendments today that change “council” to “committee”. It troubles me that the name change from council to committee reverses the standing committee's work with no good justification.

This is just one more example of the government, or perhaps I should say more correctly the Prime Minister's Office, showing nothing more than contempt for the work of this parliamentary committee and its own MPs. These are changes made just for the sake of wielding power. Unfortunately we have seen the Prime Minister's Office, through the whip, doing this on more than one occasion in the past. Is it any wonder that Canadians stayed away from the ballot box in record numbers during the last election? They feel cynical about the voice that their own representatives have in the House of Commons. When the backbenchers of any government are so restricted as to not even be able to adequately represent their own constituents and the very deliberations of their respective committees, we must recognize that democracy is gone and the dictatorship of the Prime Minister's Office has taken its place.

The idea of an aboriginal committee is in itself acceptable. In many parts of Canada, especially the northern reaches of the provinces as well as the far north, native people have an intimate knowledge of the land. Therefore, consultation with them is appropriate and desired in addition to consultation with the other stakeholders such as property owners and resource users. Motion No. 6 by the government calls for nothing more than the deletion of the term national aboriginal council, which is replaced with the term aboriginal committee later on in clause 7. This type of name change is nothing less than a slap in the face of the standing committee. It does not justify reversing the work of the committee. We must remember that these changes were initiated by Liberal members on the committee. This shows the government's contempt for the work of parliamentary committees as well as its own MPs. Certainly on that basis alone I will be opposing this amendment.

Motion No. 16 follows the same pattern by diluting the role that the aboriginal committee would have with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council. Let us remember that this council is made up of the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and ministers of the government of a province or a territory who are responsible for the conservation and management of a wildlife species in that province or territory. I believe that we run the risk of making decisions based upon political rhetoric rather than sound, good science. In honour of the committee's original recommendations, I will be opposing this motion as well.

Motions Nos. 17 and 20 continue this pattern of disrespect by the PMO and the government whip. With the respect that I have for standing committee deliberations, I will oppose them also.

The next section of amendments deals with the creation of stewardship action plans. The government is introducing such far reaching amendments to the standing committee's work that all members of the House need to take special note of it. Again we see the utter contempt of the PMO for the work of a parliamentary committee.

Originally the standing committee had required that the stewardship action plans must include a commitment to regularly examine any tax treatment and subsidies, as well as to eliminate disincentives. This is vital and yet what does the government want to do? The government wants to delete this language from the bill.

The government seems to believe that compensation is not just a cash payment but could involve other things like tax treatments which are so vital to farmers and other property owners. The government is attempting, through the use of tax incentives and disincentives, to force land and resource owners to bend to the government's will.

The bottom line appears to be that if the landowner does not follow the wishes of the government, the government will find other means of achieving its political decision.

Farmers in particular have been hit so hard these past number of years through drought, flood and global subsidy wars why on earth would the government want to put one more economic barrier in front of them?

As I have already stated, I believe that decisions, such as those involving species at risk, should be made on real science not political lobbying or political expedience.

Now the government wants to delete the standing committee's requirement that stewardship action plans provide technical and scientific support to persons engaged in stewardship activities. As an alternative, the government will make information relating to technical and scientific support available to persons engaged in stewardship activities.

This small but significant difference means that instead of giving property owners real assistance by sharing data on the presence of endangered species or assistance in configuring their property to protect sensitive habitat, the government can simply mail a pamphlet to them.

All is not gloom and doom today. I am pleased that the government has brought forward Motions Nos. 24 and 114. Motion No. 24 strengthens the legislation by placing a copy of the stewardship action plan in the public registry. I believe this is consistent with the other provisions of the bill that provide transparency. This is a positive amendment that would increase the flow of information to the public.

Motion No. 114 requires that management plans that adopt existing plans are considered to be proposed management plans until also subject to a public comment period. The intent of the motion is to accommodate the changes made by the standing committee to the bill which would establish proposed management plans. Although this is primarily a technical amendment, I will be supporting it.

Unfortunately, the remainder of the amendments run counter to the proposals made by the standing committee to the bill and, as such, I will be opposing the remainder of them.

I know my time is running short and I did want to mention concerns regarding the public consultation process under the bill, specifically the five year review and the maximum public information available.

Initially the bill had provided for a parliamentary review of the species at risk act five years after coming into force. The standing committee added the additional requirement that it be subsequently reviewed at five year intervals. However government Motion No. 130 removes the standing committee amendment and instead would put the onus on parliament to put a review on the agenda should it deem it necessary.

I believe that this is wrong and again shows contempt for the standing committee. Greater accountability and public involvement should be an integral part of our democratic process.

The government had an opportunity to do something really good. Species at risk is something with which we are all concerned, and rightly so. Unfortunately this legislation is flawed and the government amendments further take away from the legitimacy of the bill as well.

[Softwood Lumber, April 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with the lack of a softwood lumber agreement many of my Nanaimo--Cowichan constituents have been economically devastated. Mills have closed, shifts have been reduced, personal bills are not being paid, and families are hurting.

I call upon the government and the minister of HRDC to truly understand the dire consequences that are affecting these people right now. My constituents have told me what they need in this difficult time and I ask the minister to consider their request carefully. They have asked that there be an extension of Employment Insurance benefits for softwood lumber employees.

They are asking for a hand up, not a handout during this difficult time. They simply want to live through this nightmare and get back to work. They ask that there be more money available for retraining in order to achieve new economic security as well as funds to relocate to other jurisdictions where greater employment opportunities exist.

Finally, my constituents ask the federal government to work with the B.C. government and industry to create economic stability and diversification particularly in the value added sector due to the lack of free trade in softwood lumber.

I ask the government to hear the needs of my constituents, yes as taxpayers, but most importantly as fellow human beings.

[Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act, March 20th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today to take part in this debate on Bill C-15B, entitled an act to amend the criminal code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and to amend the Firearms Act.

I want to begin by stating categorically that I am a great lover of animals. I have a wonderful little dog at home that is probably the joy of my little girl's life and probably thinks I am the best guy in the world too. It is not a question of us on this side of the House and in this party not loving animals or caring for them. We certainly do.

I think that perhaps in our society very often we see great pendulum swings in the mood of society, in the way we approach social issues. If there is a great public outcry about a certain subject, the pendulum swings one way. Then it swings the other way as there is a public outcry on the other side of the issue. It is quite clear in our society, particularly North American society, and with the increase in technological advances and communication we have heard of a number of recent incidents in which animals have been used cruelly and sometimes killed outright by people who have absolutely no right to ever do anything like that.

I suppose that in response to those kinds of incidents, about which we have all heard, there are definitely lobby groups in our society that have pushed the government to bring in stricter laws and stricter controls in terms of cruelty to animals. Of course the government has also lumped in a bunch of other things in the bill, just to confuse the issue.

The stated purpose of the bill, of course, is to amend the criminal code by consolidating animal cruelty offences and increasing the maximum penalties. The bill also adds administrative provisions that are intended to simplify applications for the Firearms Act. Bill C-15B reintroduces the proposed amendments to the cruelty to animals provisions of the criminal code that were introduced in Bill C-17 during the last parliament, with certain changes. We remember some of the outcry at that time about this legislation. Unfortunately, even though there are a few minor improvements to this legislation, there are many people out there in our country who are very concerned about the legislation. In particular, people who are engaged in the harvesting and husbandry of animals for their livelihoods have a great number of concerns about the bill.

I know that government legislation cannot satisfy everybody. It will not satisfy everybody. However, when sufficiently large numbers of people in our country have registered tremendous disapproval of the bill, it is important for us as legislators to take into account their concerns. There are a number of groups across the country that simply do not feel the government is listening to their concerns. They do not feel that we have to go this far to satisfy one group and to perhaps somehow eliminate cruelty to animals.

What we are saying in our opposition to a number of clauses in the bill is that we do not have to go this far. One concern with the bill is that the definition of the word “animal” is far too broad. The proposed definition of animal in Bill C-15B includes non-human vertebrates and all animals having “the capacity to feel pain”.

Let me show how we can go from the sublime to the ridiculous on something like this. I happen to be a fisherman. That is what I do with my spare time outside the House of Commons. Of course I would rather be here, but in those times when I cannot be here I go fishing, I work in my garden or I take my wife out to dinner, not particularly in that order of priority, but we do have lives outside the House, do we not? I enjoy fishing.

Fishing, of course, means that at times one has to put a worm on a hook. Unfortunately I have not been able to communicate very well with the bait I use, so I have no authoritative voice with which to say whether or not the worm I use actually feels pain. However, in the enjoyment of my sport, shared with perhaps millions of others in the country, I have come to the conclusion that it is probably okay for me to do that and to pursue fishing without the possibility of coming under some kind of cloud of suspicion that I am being cruel to the worm.

However, there just may be someone in my area or in the country who feels otherwise. It is quite possible that some day I might have worm police knocking on my door to tell me I am being cruel to the worms and that under the provisions of Bill C-15B, which would have been passed in the House by that time, they have to take me into custody.

Of course, that would never occur, would it? To go from the sublime to the ridiculous in such a way simply could not happen, could it? However, it might just happen and it might happen for anybody else engaged in any sporting activity in the country that has long been recognized as recreational or that sometimes, for the benefit of those who need the food, is something that is quite legitimate and within the law.

When we see the pendulum in our society move from one pole to the other, very often things like this get caught in the middle. I believe, and I am sure many of my hon. colleagues in the House believe, that we need to have balance in the legislation. The government is not providing balance.

Another key concern is that the criminal code would no longer provide the same level of legal protection presently afforded to those who use animals for legitimate, lawful and justified practices. Think of all the farmers across the country who are engaged in animal husbandry of some kind or another who could possibly, and I am not saying that they would, be brought before the bar of justice because under the legislation they would be accused of somehow being cruel to animals. What does that do to the agricultural community in the country, which is suffering more and more every day? It is just one more nail in the coffin of the agricultural community in many ways.

We ought to think very carefully about these kinds of considerations and consequences before we pass this kind of draconian legislation.

[Aboriginal Affairs, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I met with the Manitoba chiefs to discuss their concerns about the proposed first nations governance act and how it is to be implemented in Manitoba under the existing framework agreement initiative. The FAI is in place until the year 2004 and through negotiation is intended to take Manitoba first nations out from under the Indian Act.

How does the minister intend to get a first nations governance act equally applied across the country when he already has a signed agreement in force to do the very same thing with the Manitoba first nations?

[Species at Risk Act, February 21st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, as we debate Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation, I want to speak to the Group No. 2 amendments before us.

I continue to be amazed that even with this third attempt by the government the minister continues to upset so many different groups of people including the standing committee members, the agricultural community and those who would describe themselves as active environmentalists. That certainly takes some kind of special talent to anger so many groups at once. Unfortunately it is a skill that I do not have nor do I desire to have it.

However as we look at these amendments I would like to take a few minutes to look at them in greater detail. Motion No. 2 states that the preamble be amended by adding the phrase “the protection of habitats and species on provincial lands is entirely under provincial jurisdiction”. While my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance have long advocated the full recognition and differentiation between federal and provincial jurisdiction, the amendment is simply not true. For example, certain migratory birds are already protected by the Migratory Birds Convention Act of 1994.

We strongly oppose Bill C-5 in part because it would permit the minister, entirely at his own discretion and without any criteria, negotiation or accountability, to impose federal law on provincial jurisdiction. This is wrong, confrontational and in the end really unworkable. However we do not agree that jurisdiction must be entirely provincial. There are some cases where the federal government by way of its criminal law power, as set out in section 91 of the constitution, can legitimately be involved in protecting endangered species on provincial lands.

I believe that Motion No. 23 is a key part of what we are debating today. The amendment would give the minister far too much power under the act. While the standing committee gave this issue full and fair debate, making recommendations to the minister, he has now turned around and usurped his own committee's recommendations. What a shame that is and what a slur it is on the democratic process.

The motion would give the minister the discretionary authority to develop, in consultation with the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council, a stewardship action plan under Bill C-5 but it would not require him to do so.

If the basis of the act is supposed to be voluntary stewardship programs, then it is entirely reasonable to expect that the minister would set out a plan for accomplishing this. Further, this plan must spell out the incentives and measures which would be used to support stewardship action plans. The minister should be required to do this and not allowed to simply ask to be trusted. Unfortunately Canadians have seen too many bad examples of the government asking people to trust it without really knowing all of the facts.

Under Motion No. 35 the minister has again ignored the standing committee's debate and recommendations. The amendment, like the original bill, would mean that the cabinet must actively choose to place species identified by the expert scientific panel on the legal list. If it does nothing, the panel's recommendation has no effect.

The committee placed a reverse onus on the government. If cabinet did not act within six months then the COSEWIC recommendations would automatically be added to the legal list. It is necessary to maintain a balance between giving unelected and unaccountable scientists full power to determine the list, as some of the environmental groups wish, and giving cabinet the power to ignore objective scientific recommendations.

Placing species on the list of endangered species would trigger the provisions of the act with serious criminal sanctions and potentially heavy economic costs for landowners and resources users. Because of these implications the process must be transparent and the people affected must have the ability to argue their case. It is inappropriate for scientists to exercise political discretion in having to balance these competing social and economic policy directions; indeed, few of them really want that job.

The committee struck this balance properly by giving the cabinet the final say on the list but required it to act in a timely fashion. The government amendment would tip the balance too far back toward cabinet discretion and potentially would undermine the expert work of the scientific panel.

Motion No. 48 would delete clause 34(1) which would open the door for the minister to recommend that a governor in council order apply the federal act on provincial lands.

I cannot accept the position of my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois that the federal law should never apply in a province. We believe that the federal minister and cabinet should not have sole discretionary power. Therefore until the government commits to negotiating with the province to establish criteria for the application of federal law to provincial lands, complete with a timeframe and provisions for compensating property owners for losses, we will oppose the current provisions. In short we need to have some restrictions on the ministerial discretion.

Motion No. 53, if deleted in its entirety, would reduce or possibly even eliminate public input. I believe that the criteria developed by federal and provincial ministers for the application of the act on provincial lands should be made available for public comment. This would be a vital step in the development of a national program to protect endangered species that has the support of all governments and stakeholders.

My colleagues and I will be supporting Motion No. 54 which would eliminate the provision that the act would be applied on provincial land should the minister and the provincial ministers not reach an agreement within six months. We have no objection to the application of the act if it is done with the agreement and involvement of the provincial governments.

Many motions introduced by the government overrule the work that was done by the standing committee therefore usurping the role and the power of the committee. What a sad statement on democracy as we see it in the House today, perhaps even sadder than the amendments themselves. For this and many reasons we will be opposing the bill and supporting some of these amendments.

[Infrastructure, February 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, for a number of years I have been trying to get a satisfactory answer from the government on the retention of the Gabriola Island Green Wharf which acts as a major transportation link for hundreds of people who live on Mudge Island in my riding.

We now have a new minister of public works. Could he give my constituents of Nanaimo--Cowichan assurance that they will have continued use of this important marine facility?

[Species at Risk Act, February 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to join in the debate today on Bill C-5, the species at risk legislation.

I am no stranger to the important issue of being a good steward of the land and the world around us. The habitat of the Vancouver Island marmot, one of Canada's most noted species at risk, is in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan. Like my colleagues on all sides of the House, I have learned much in the past number of years about the need to ensure the ongoing balance of natural habitat and the effect the issue has on our daily lives.

The premise of preserving species at risk is not open to debate. I am sure all members see the value of this. However the government has done such a poor job of putting the bill together that I must oppose it. It is amazing that after three attempts the government and the Minister of the Environment still cannot get it right.

As we debate the Group No. 1 amendments and the issue of compensation I believe the legislation would do more harm to habitat and people than the current lack of legislation. I commend my colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, specifically my hon. friend from Red Deer, for putting a great deal of effort and thought into the proposed amendments we are debating today.

People in my riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan are concerned with conservation, the environment and the natural habitat around them. For those who do not know my part of Canada it is filled with vast tracts of untouched rainforest. We understand the need to preserve and protect species at risk. However in so doing we must ensure the protection is done fairly and in balance with those who would be directly and indirectly affected.

The issue of compensation plays an integral part in the bill. Bill C-5 includes the premise that the minister may pay compensation for losses due to the species at risk act. This is an improvement over the Liberal's earlier versions of the endangered species bill but it is still not good enough. Compensation under the current bill would be entirely at the minister's discretion. There is no requirement that it be paid and no recognition that landowners and users have rights as well as responsibilities.

At the Standing Committee on the Environment the Canadian Alliance won a huge victory when it was agreed that compensation should be “fair and reasonable”. However the bill says compensation should only be for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact arising from the application of the act. Under the current version of the bill we do not fully know what the term “extraordinary impact” means.

Dr. Peter Pearse suggested in his government commissioned study that landowners be compensated up to 50% for losses of 10% or more of income. Will this be the new government policy? If so, why not have the courage to say so and include it in legislation?

The minister pleads that compensation is a complex issue. He says more time is needed to study it properly. At no time has the minister brought forward cost estimates for different compensation scenarios or had discussions about how many people might be affected. This only contributes to the uncertainty and reinforces the perception that government environmental programs would be brought forward with little or no planning or preparation. I encourage the minister to table the compensation estimates and reports today.

Why compensate? It is recognized almost around the world that to implement an effective species at risk act there is a need for compensation. If the government is serious about species at risk legislation it should incorporate the principles of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to conserve species and ecosystems. Article 20 of the convention states:

Developed country Parties shall provide new and additional financial resources to enable developing country Parties to meet the agreed full incremental costs to them of implementing measures which fulfill the obligations of this Convention--

The UN convention recognizes that because the objective of maintaining bio and ecosystem diversity is so important, costs must be equitably borne by everyone and not primarily by developing countries. We expect the same principle to apply to Bill C-5. It should recognize that the protection of endangered species is for the common good of all Canadians.

Compensation to private landowners for regulatory restrictions imposed in protecting endangered species and preserving biological diversity is practised in many jurisdictions around the world. I will cite a few examples. In Tasmania the Threatened Species Protection Act 1995 states:

A landholder is entitled to compensation for financial loss suffered directly resulting from an interim protection order or a land management agreement.

The legislation goes on to state:

The Minister must determine the amount of compensation to be paid to a person entitled to compensation.

In the European community landowners receive compensation if they agree via a management agreement to maintain features of the landscape. The United Kingdom operates the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme with 10 year agreements. Under the act payments are based on a per hectare basis. There are currently 43 ESAs in the United Kingdom covering 15% of the agricultural land base.

Switzerland runs the Integrated Production program, a voluntary scheme whereby farmers are given standard amounts based on profits foregone in return for agreeing to certain restrictions.

Scotland has the Goose Management Scheme run by the Scottish National Heritage trust. The scheme pays farmers per head for greenland white fronted geese recorded on the land over a 12 month period.

The concept of compensation corresponds directly with the basic principles of the economic market. In other words, if the value of my property is diminished because of someone else's actions I expect to be compensated. In addition, provisions in the legislation for full compensation would act as a disciplinary device for governments. Many Canadians are already skeptical of the role of government in their daily lives. A disciplinary process would restrict random regulations, make the government more careful in planning and respect private property which is the basis of our economic system.

Compensation or full support is absolutely necessary to achieve full co-operation from landowners and healthy species populations. It has been the experience of other countries that without proper compensation incentives, people depending on land for their livelihood act in ways counterproductive to saving species at risk. This is not in anyone's best interest.

The endangered species act would give unwarranted discretion to the minister to intervene and defend species at risk yet it gives no guidance about how the goal is to be balanced with other considerations. COSEWIC, the independent scientific panel responsible for maintaining the list of species at risk, would take into consideration scientific evidence. This is as it should be. However it must be balanced against the real concerns of property owners, industry and the economic well-being of all Canadians.

Protecting endangered species must work for the species and for people. Any other approach would risk creating antagonism and suspicion rather than co-operation. It would guarantee the act did not work for anyone. The government must do more for property owners, farmers and others who feel their livelihoods or prosperity may be affected. It must not simply say “trust us”. It must stipulate that a commitment to protecting endangered species would be cost effective and respect the economic interests of Canadians.

Motion No. 1 therefore asks:

That Bill C-5, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 24 on page 2 with the following:

“landowners should be compensated for any financial or material losses to ensure that the costs of conserving species at risk are shared equitably by all Canadians,”

The premise of legislation protecting our endangered species is an important and valid one. Action is long overdue, but let us ensure the legislation will adequately deal with all parts of the equation and not just one.