Bob Mills

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

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the motions in Group No. 4.

We in our party are in favour of protecting species at risk. However Bill C-5 would do that. It is not a workable piece of legislation. That is why we are opposing it. It should be clear by now that not only our party opposes Bill C-5. All the opposition parties and a great many Liberal members are opposing it. That should tell the government something. It should tell the Minister of the Environment the legislation is not good enough. It would not save species at risk.

The committee met. It brought in witness after witness. We on the committee put forward more than 300 amendments. More than 100 of them were from government members. We listened. We consulted. We talked to experts. We talked to many Canadians. We all talked to people at length in our ridings. We learned a lot about species at risk and what the legislation should be about.

In putting forward our amendments we took into consideration things like compensation in Group No. 1. We talked about mens rea versus due diligence in Group No. 2. We talked about provincial safety nets, sustainable development and socio-economic impacts in Group No. 3. We are now into Group No. 4. We want to talk about the process of creating an action plan and how the government intends to do it.

Everyone worked hard and co-operated to make legislation that would protect species at risk. It was frustrating to come back at report stage to find all the good work we as a group had spent nine months on was changed back by the government. We have a stillborn bill because of what the government has done to it.

The government says it does not want to review the bill in five years. It has eliminated the five year review. I do not know what it is afraid of. I cannot imagine the reason any government could have for not reviewing how well a piece of legislation is working.

I will talk primarily today about our party's Motion No. 127. It is probably one of the major issues in the section. A number of amendments are technical and we agree with some of them. However this issue is the most upsetting to all of us.

Because there are no members here to listen I will walk our viewers through the process and how it might work. Endangered species would be listed. This would be done scientifically by COSEWIC. We trust it would do its job adequately. The list would then go to the political masters. However now that they have amended the bill from what the committee proposed they would not consider the socio-economic impacts. They would not consider the legalities.

Who would then identify endangered species? Let us say the DFO police would do it. It is interesting. In Alberta we have over 20 new Department of Fisheries and Oceans officers. Why are there so many new DFO officers in Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C.? The fisheries department has done such a poor job there are no fish. They had to send the officers somewhere where there were still fish. That is the only reason I can think of.

How these people do their investigations is most interesting. Some minnows were found in a provincial jurisdiction in Alberta and fisheries officers arrived to investigate. They arrived with flak jackets on. They were armed with guns which were drawn. They broke down the door to enter a provincial office. They wore flak jackets, their guns were drawn and they broke down the door because some minnows were found.

Is that the kind of action there will be for our endangered species? That happened. It is not a story. Ask the Alberta environment minister about that. The poor secretaries were shocked when those guys broke down the door and entered the office to seize the files. That is the way DFO may handle the endangered species. I hope not.

To continue, the minister is advised by the officers, whoever they are, that there is an endangered species or some endangered habitat. Remember if a person is found guilty of hurting that endangered species or changing that habitat, it is a punishable criminal offence. The person could go to jail.

Motion No. 127 says that the landowner has to be advised that he has endangered habitat or an endangered species. The way the bill reads now, the minister may decide to not release the information to the public. I can understand that because tourists and all the bird watchers in North America might come to see a piece of property and break down the fences. They might damage the endangered species habitat, so I can understand not making it public. However I cannot understand why the onus should not be on the minister to tell the landowner that there is an endangered species on the land.

When one of the DFO police has decided that is the case, what would be so onerous about telling the landowner that there is an endangered species on the land? I do not understand how we can have a piece of legislation that does not demand that the government advise people that they have an endangered habitat or an endangered species on their land. It defies all imagination. That is why we fought so hard for a mens rea clause. It is why we felt that due diligence was not fair. The farmer cannot do an environmental impact study, cannot know that an endangered species is on his land.

I have gone through the list which includes tiny cryptanthe, a slender mouse-ear-cress, a hairy prairie-clover, a burrowing owl, a sand verbena. How does a farmer or rancher know what a sand verbena is? It is an endangered species in Saskatchewan. I do not know how the farmer will know. The government will not tell him. What kind of legislation is that?

We have to change the bill. We have to defeat some of the amendments and we have to pass some of the amendments we are putting forward if we have any hope of the proposed legislation working.

The making of an action plan is now discretionary for the minister. He may not have to come up with an action plan. He may not have to tell the public about it. He may not have to tell the landowner about it.

The legislation just will not work. Like the other three groups of amendments, some of the Group No. 4 amendments are just technical ones. However we have to change some of the amendments to allow for informing landowners across the country.

[The Environment, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. is not part of Kyoto. How can we get credit for somebody that is not part of it?

The same chief scientist told us that Kyoto will have little impact on greenhouse gas levels unless it is followed by many more such treaties. Such a prospect is rather frightening.

My question for the Minister of the Environment is this: Where is the government taking us? Is it planning to wreak havoc on the entire Canadian economy by imposing even more greenhouse gas treaties once we get beyond Kyoto?

[The Environment, March 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the chief scientist on the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change has been quoted as saying that Canada would not get credit for exporting clean energy to the U.S. since the Americans have rejected Kyoto, yet the government tells us exactly the opposite. How can we believe anything the government says about Kyoto when it makes such stupid assumptions?

Will the government delay its ratification decision until after the credit scheme is in place?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister has told us that we will get a report next month. He also tabled something yesterday in the House which he said was up to date information. However when we read this very carefully we find a whole bunch of innuendoes. The cost of the drought in Saskatchewan has been priced in. The cost of the 1998 ice storm was also included. The government says that all of these will be savings once Kyoto is in place.

What does the member think the report in April is going to be like? Does he think it will be similar to this? Does he have confidence the government will do its homework and that the economic models designed by it will in any way relate to what the real facts might be on the ground?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions. I think what we are really saying is that we need to move beyond Kyoto, that Kyoto is an out of date piece of legislation because so many countries are not signing on.

I want to ask the member about the new jobs. I agree with her that it would be great to have those new jobs, but the Canadian government is not doing enough to help establish our environmental industries so that those jobs will be there. The other countries are progressing way beyond us. In Vancouver last week one could see the technology levels of different countries.

What I really would like this member to explain is the transferring of dollars from the rich countries to the poor countries to buy credits. How is that really going to help, first, the people there, and second, the environment? What we are doing is buying the credits so we can release more CO

2

into the environment. How does that help the environment?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, fossil fuels have an impact on the environment and on climate change. We all agree that climate change is occurring.

I want to address my questions to the hon. member. First, should the government not be doing something to encourage alternate energy research faster? Is it doing enough?

Second, regarding the model we are to be seeing in April, the U.S., where 90% of our trade is, is not part of it. China, India, Brazil, Mexico, et cetera, are not part of this agreement. The Europeans can change because the U.K. went from coal to gas. France is nuclear and Germany through reunification deindustrialized the east bloc and took advantage of it. Does he believe that the government's report will consider all those things? If he does, we need to talk.

Third, does he believe that had we signed Kyoto the Saguenay floods and the ice storm would not have happened?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentions the commitment of the government to this matter and that is great. Those words are great and all the things that he mentioned are wonderful things, but the reality is that while we have spent $1.4 billion on Kyoto we have just recently announced $7 million for some of these new technologies. That $1.4 billion went to conferences and those kinds of things, not to new technology.

Does the member not think that we should be doing more to encourage industry, possibly with incentives, tax breaks and those kinds of approaches, like we see in the U.S. and in some European countries? Would that not be a better way to encourage this to develop even faster?

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not know where to start. First, the hon. member talked about pollution. Kyoto is about CO

2

emissions. CO

2

is a natural gas that plants use for photosynthesis. It is not a poison to humans. The hon. member should first understand what Kyoto is.

Second, he talked about the transfer of capital. The transfer of capital is a UN concept and passing it on to third world countries is what it is all about. That would be great if it would help those people in those poor countries but that would not happen.

The member talked about consultation. This document is an example of consultation. The assumptions in here are ridiculous. I have talked to the environment ministers of the provinces. They have not been consulted. If we were to talk to Canadians and ask them what they understand about Kyoto and if they were consulted I do not think they would say that they have been.

Finally, as far as industry is concerned, it is waiting for leadership. It is prepared and wants to deal with climate change. It is real and it is good for business to deal with it but it needs to know where the government is going based on facts and science.

That is what it is all about and what the member just told us deals with none of those issues in any kind of depth. It is about as shallow as I have ever heard.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing about climate change. Yes, there is climate change. Yes, humans are probably having an impact on it. What will we do about it? The point we are trying to make is that we need to show leadership. What is happening today?

I learned last week that the world is moving forward to new technologies. The Americans are probably leading the way in developing the technologies but the Danish and the Germans are close behind. The Canadians are not. That is because the government has not provided the direction, the leadership or the excitement. It has not involved Canadians or gotten them excited about the changes that are possible. That is the point.

My hon. colleague mentioned protecting sinks. Yes, sinks are important. Yes, we should do more with them and understand them better. However the science is not there because we have not developed it. We have used it as an excuse.

Let us look at emissions trading. We could trade emissions with third world countries. For instance, the Dutch could send $300 million to buy emissions credits. Where would the money go? It would go to the top guys in government in corrupt countries. It sure would not end up helping the environment or helping industries in those countries develop clean energy. It would go into Swiss bank accounts. The countries would never develop. They would never get cleaner. They would never get better.

If we want to fix the world's environment we must do something about it. The government must show leadership and direction.

[Supply, March 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question. That is the point. Yesterday the minister tabled in the House a paper which I hold in my hand. It tells about the studies which have been done to this point. To try to justify the $300 million the minister uses such things as the $5 billion cost of the prairie drought and the $6 billion cost of the 1998 ice storm. He uses the figures to say it would not cost much.

If we had signed Kyoto and it had been in effect for the last 20 years it would not have made any difference to the figures. That is the point. Canada accounts for 2% of the world's CO

2

emissions. Unless we can get developing countries and major countries like the United States and Japan onside we will not stop the effects.

The government has a pie in the sky notion that it would stop droughts. What Canadian believes that by ratifying Kyoto the Canadian government would stop weather changes? There are ways to stop it. If we want to get rid of CO

2

we must help China do it. We must help Brazil do it. We must help Mexico do it. We must use some of the technology the Americans are developing.

Instead we put our heads in the sand and say we will sign the accord and that will fix it all. We cannot change climate that easily. That is the point. How can we estimate the costs? What has the government been doing for four years? Why are the models not here? Most of what it is doing is based on modelling anyway. It could not model the last 100 years. There is no way it could have modelled that and have been able to predict what would happen. Members can check our weather forecasting and see how accurate it is on a day to day basis.