John Herron

[The Environment, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on November 2, 1999, the Minister of Natural Resources stated “Canada has engaged the active assistance of provinces, environmental organizations and the private sector in developing a Kyoto implementation plan”. Three years later we still have no rules for industry's early action and no provincial consensus.

How is it possible that a plan cobbled together in two months can make up for five years of inaction and still have the elements of an analysis sector by sector, province by province with regulations to have credibility with industry, the provinces and the environmental community?

[The Environment, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said in Russia that Canadians will have to have some modifications to the Kyoto protocol. I would assume that he shares the view that Canada must receive credit for the export of clean energy, specifically clean natural gas and hydroelectric power to the U.S.

Is this one of the modifications the Prime Minister referred to in Russia and, if so, what concrete steps is he now taking to ensure Canada receives credit for clean energy exports?

[Parliamentary Telecommunications, February 22nd, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to inform the House that the score is one-nil for Canada in the semi-final game--

[The Environment, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the environment minister is gutting out key improvements made to Bill C-5 by the environment committee that were supported by landowners and provinces. Worse still, the Government of Canada shamelessly ignored a consensus reached in advance by environmentalists and industry.

It is unbelievable that the bill does not provide for mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, in the government's own backyard. Yet the bill permits the minister to arbitrarily intervene on private and provincial lands. The reality is that the environment minister never did his homework. The provinces were never on side on clauses 34, 35 and 61 before Bill C-5 was tabled. Now the minister is gutting committee amendments that the provinces support.

For example, Minister John Snobelen of Ontario said, “I appreciate the standing committee's suggestions for criteria regarding the application of the federal safety net.”

Why is it that we had to wait eight years for a bill that is so weak and void of mandatory protection of critical habitat, scientific listing, clear compensation and provisions to--

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

Yes, I do have one more. The province of Alberta does not really care for this particular act at all. The clauses it hates the most are clauses 34, 35 and 61.

We thought our idea of interjecting criteria was a good one, as did Mike Cardinal, the minister who serves as the minister for resource development, who said:

Although your suggestion provides some further clarity in terms of the conduct of the federal Minister in exercising his authority, they do not alleviate provincial concerns respecting the overall intent of these sections.

He has said that he does not like the bill and, in particular, these clauses, but that what the committee did does provide at least further clarity. The sort of dislike radar is actually decreased in that regard. We have Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island all saying the same thing.

With respect to listing, I would like to quote one particular section from the province of New Brunswick regarding scientific listing. Minister Volpé, the minister of natural resources, one of the strongest ministers in that great government of Bernard Lord, actually takes a national approach, meaning the federal government's approach to species at risk conservation, and says:

--to decouple the scientific determination of whether a species was at risk from the recovery or response actions.

The scientific determination on the status of a species should be based solely on science and the best available information. That is the job for scientists. The subsequent actions to respond to the status of species must weigh social and economic consequences against recommended recovery/ response actions. This is the job of elected officials. Bill C-5 as written and amended is not consistent with either of these two underlying premises of the national species at risk program.

Shame on the Government of Canada for not embracing scientific listing and not having the same kind of stewardship that the province of New Brunswick has.

I have heard, and I have to admit that it is only hearsay, that the Minister of the Environment has been saying that the provinces are mad about the committee's amendments. I have just demonstrated in the Chamber that the provinces do support what the committee has done and that the government is reversing amendments that the provinces categorically support.

I say shame on the Government of Canada for the amendments it has in Group No. 2, and shame on the Government of Canada for not respecting the stewardship that the provinces have and for not respecting what the national accord on protection of biodiversity was in 1966.

I was glad to share these letters with my colleagues in this room. This may have been their first chance to hear them so I will be very interested to hear what their responses will be at first blush.

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

As the member for Windsor--St. Clair just said, after an awful lot of hard work. The provinces supported the provisions made by the committee but the government wants to reverse those very same provisions.

Why is it that we do not have mandatory protection of critical habitat on federal lands, or what we believe is federal jurisdiction, yet the bill has provisions to interfere in provincial jurisdiction or perhaps even on private lands?

The Government of Canada has no moral suasion to do that unless it were to protect its own backyard.

Were it advocated in the context of a series of amendments that if a federal law was going to intrude or engage on provincial jurisdiction, it would be only prudent for us to have some criteria that would outline that level of engagement.

This is not only my opinion in the Progressive Conservative Party and my DR cousins. It is the opinion of the NDP. It was the opinion at the committee level of the Canadian Alliance. It is also the opinion level of the provinces.

I quote from a letter that was sent to me, dated December 20, 2001, from the minister of natural resources in the province of Ontario who has cartage of issues pertaining to species at risk. In a letter written by a strong minister in that particular cabinet, the hon. John Snobelen, he states clearly in this particular instance:

The only obligation on the part of the minister is to “consult” with the provinces before making the recommendation.

As members probably know, this is the case in clauses 34, 35 and 61. The minister goes on to state:

However, it is Ontario's position that the wording and the intent of section 34, clearly undermined that the co-operative spirit and willingness of the provinces and territories to enter into the collaborative decision making required to build a strong national program. I appreciate the Standing Committee's suggestions for a criteria regarding the application of the federal safety net.

What is the Government of Canada doing? It is gutting this provision that the province of Ontario supports.

He does go on to say that he believes that the Canadian Endangered Species Conservation Council should decide on that final criteria. That is exactly what happens in clauses 34 and 35 because of the work of the committee. Now the government wants to gut that out so that the Minister of the Environment can arbitrarily go in whenever he happens to think it is appropriate or not, as opposed to actually setting out actual criteria.

It is not just Ontario that shares this particular opinion. We can look at the Tory government in the province of Nova Scotia which also has a very strong piece of legislation. I might add that it has the strongest piece of environmental legislation on species at risk in Canada.

In a letter to me dated January 7, the hon. minister, Ernest Fage, writes:

“However, “the safety net” is one of the provisions of the new Act which goes beyond spirit and intent of the Accord as you have stated--

Here he is referring to a letter I had written to him. He goes on to say:

--the lack of clarity around the term “effective” protection is problematic, especially as it relates to “a critical habitat”. We agree that a test for the “effective” protection acceptable to all jurisdictions needs to be developed”.

Guess what? The Government of Canada has gutter that provision as well. It is against Ontario and against Nova Scotia. However, we do have more. When we wrote to the province of Prince Edward Island to tell it about the fact that we had established criteria, it said that it appreciated the establishment of the criteria and the application of prohibitions under the proposed act within the provinces and territories. Prince Edward Island is currently in the process of reviewing the recommendations of the standing committee. The hon. minister in Prince Edward Island who is responsible for this particular file, Chester Gillian, had no problems with the committee's amendments in that instance.

Now we are against P.E.I., against Nova Scotia and against Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and on behalf of my dearly beloved colleagues who have formed a broader coalition with respect to my DR colleagues, to speak to the second group of amendments.

We believe, and I think anybody who is reasonable believes, that a scientist is far more capable than a politician of determining whether a species is at risk or not.

Of course elected officials would believe in the very issue that social and economic implications have to be taken into account. They are taken into account in the context of the recovery plan. However, the list should be the list and social and economic implications is a job for elected officials to make sure that aspect is actually taken care of.

The other aspect I will speak about is the provisions that the Government of Canada is taking that actually gut elements and provisions that were made in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government has no respect for parliament nor parliamentary committees. Yesterday the government whip hijacked the election of the finance committee chair. Now the environment minister is gutting the environment committee's amendments to the species at risk bill.

The minister never had the provinces or landowners on side prior to tabling Bill C-5 and has now gutted provisions that they support. Worse still, he shamelessly ignored a consensus that was reached in advance by environmentalists and industry.

Why is it we had to wait eight years for such a poor bill, and why is the minister showing such arrogance for the committee process?

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to participate in the report stage aspect of the bill, but I must add that given that we have waited for species at risk legislation for over eight years since the government came to power, we now have proposed legislation that has been panned by most environmental groups because of its inadequacies in providing fair and reasonable compensation. It has been panned by landowners. As well, the provinces were clearly not on board beforehand.

I also want to add that the government had a glorious opportunity to utilize a consensus built among environmental groups and industry groups alike. They actually developed a common position paper which ensured that we had the principal aspects of a bill. There was scientific listing, which means that a species being or not being at risk should be based on science and not political choice. We should have mandatory protection for critical habitat on federal lands. We should also include migratory birds. Also, clearly landowners and all stakeholders need to ensure that we have a proper compensatory regime for those situations when writing a cheque is necessary to compensate landowners for loss of income where it can be identified. Clearly that cheque has to be at least fair and reasonable.

I do applaud the Canadian Alliance members and their efforts in committee on these aspects. They teamed up with the Progressive Conservatives and, I might add, the NDP to some degree to at least try to improve some aspects of the bill.

In regard to the motions before us, on clause 1 the amendment by the member for Lethbridge is clearly going in the right direction. It states:

--landowners should be compensated for any financial material losses to ensure that the cost of conserving species at risk are shared equitably by all Canadians--

I think that is a very good amendment.

I might add that there is another aspect of what is wrong with the compensatory regime in the bill. When Bill C-11, the immigration bill, was passed, we saw that it was framework legislation with the details to be provided in regulations some time down the road. If the government truly had its act together on the bill before us and knew what it was doing, the regulations pertaining to compensation would be tabled simultaneously with the bill itself. They should be. The fact is that the reason we do not have those regulations in play is that the government does not have its game plan down with respect to compensation.

We should not be surprised. The minister stated that reasonable behaviour is “something we expect, not something we need to buy”. He was a late arriver on the issue of compensation, which is one of the reasons why we do not have this aspect sorted out in the bill itself.

Other motions in this group include Motion No. 12, tabled by the member for Red Deer, which we do not support. In our view, the Tory view, the purpose of the bill should be to protect species at risk. The hon. member wants to ensure that it is done in a cost effective manner. I am okay with that but it is not the primary purpose of the bill itself. Clearly social and economic implications have to be taken into account during the recovery plan. That is where this aspect is done. Therefore I support the intent of what the member is looking at, but I do not support the language of the motion. Motion No. 13 brought forward by the member for Lethbridge is a similar motion. For the very same reasons we are not on board with it

We are clearly on board with Motion No. 28 in this first group. The motion brought forward by the member for Skeena states:

The agreement shall provide for fair and reasonable financial or material support--

At the committee stage of the bill the only substantive amendment that passed and at least improved the compensatory regime was the language tabled by the Progressive Conservatives on the words “fair and reasonable”. Before that it was entirely vague.

I thank members of the CA, the NDP and some very learned principal members of the Liberal caucus who stepped up to the plate to support the motion.

Moving to Motion No. 103 of the group we are debating at the moment, it has been tabled by the member for Lanark--Carleton. In our view he is trying to ensure that in accordance with regulations full, just and timely compensation is provided to any person for losses. Essentially he is trying to put a time line on it. We think it would strengthen the act and should be worthy of support of the House.

Moving to Motion No. 108, we are on board on that aspect as well. Essentially the member is advocating a strengthening of the compensatory regime. He is referring to the issue of the loss that one suffered as a result of the application of the act. We think that is indeed worthy of support.

Moving to Motion No. 111, it is a very good amendment by the member for Lanark--Carleton. It is more comprehensive than what we saw at committee stage when we went through this aspect. He tried to provide a bit more clarity with respect to what would be and would not be recovered.

He made reference to rules for the recovery of reasonable legal and other costs as a result of the compensation claim. We know that it is more than just the dollars that could be potentially lost. A lot of energy, time, effort and legal costs may come into play for one to win a potential claim with the Government of Canada if it ever gets its compensatory regime and regulations sorted out.

Moving to Motion No. 121, tabled by the member for Red Deer, we are not in support of the particular option. He is advocating that of the cumulative fines a potential landowner may have only one fine as opposed to a person making a series of infractions.

We want the legislation to have balance, in the words of the minister. We need to provide carrots to ensure we have reasonable behaviour by having a very strong stewardship regime and by perhaps even providing tax incentives, scientific capacity and the like.

I refer to the Tory amendment that was passed under the national stewardship strategy plan which outlined some of those aspects. However, if we want to be able to provide those carrots first, we know the stick is a component of strong legislation. We think that Motion No. 121 waters down that aspect. First and foremost we should be providing incentives so that we all collectively get the job done.

The last motion in this group is Motion No. 128. This will conclude my remarks on this section. We will support it. It says the minister shall in all circumstances advise the affected landowner, lessee or land user of the location of a wildlife species or habitat that is at risk.

The Progressive Conservatives had at least two amendments passed in the clause by clause section that were accepted by the committee. I am not sure if that will be gutted or not. We have not reached that section just yet.

To encourage landowners to take reasonable action the first thing we must do is notify them. They need to know there is a species at risk there and that steps may need to be taken. Those steps may just be to provide some very low level efforts to avoid a section of a woodlot or, depending on what particular species it might be, it could be tax incentives. However the first thing we need to do is notify them. That concludes my remarks on this group of amendments.

[Species at Risk Act, February 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I do not want anyone to think we are not prepared to do battle on this group of amendments because the Tories are ready to do battle.

We have just saw the groupings moments ago. As you know, the details of this bill are quite complicated. It would be prudent if members had a chance to identify the groupings and look at how they play on each other, particularly given that a myriad of amendments were in turn ruled out of order for this stage of action. Given the complexity and the number of amendments that we have to deal with, it would be appropriate for members to be given sufficient time, perhaps one day, before dealing with them on a report stage basis.

If we do battle today, we are ready. However perhaps on future occasions when groupings are made, you may wish to give members of the House one day's notice to see how the amendments play on each other as they head toward report stage. I think it would be a prudent use of members' time. However, if you deem we are going ahead with them today, then we are ready.