Gar Knutson

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the comments of the opposition parties and I want to make a few comments about the first group of amendments.

Members of the Reform Party made two main points. First, they felt this legislation was similar to the legislation in the United States and that we would have major upheaval similar to the upheaval the Americans have had in their forest communities because of the owl. I want to point out that this legislation is not at all like the legislation in the U.S. It is actually more similar to the legislation in Ontario and other provinces, where there have not been major disruptions. There has not been a major infringement on land owner rights.

Members of the Reform Party should stop whipping up all of this misinformation regarding the bill. They should read it for what it is, do their research and appreciate that we are not in an American jurisdiction and the laws are applied quite differently.

The other point they make concerns compensation. If they knew anything about Canadian law they would know that the right to compensation when a public authority takes away a private right is well founded in law and that people would be eligible for compensation, regardless of whether it is in this bill or not. It is a well founded principle in common law.

The point more generally is that the protection of species can only be met through co-operation and partnership, since no single jurisdiction acting on its own can meet the needs of all endangered species. The beluga whale, the whooping crane and the horned owl do not recognize political boundaries.

We will be able to protect species at risk only through a partnership with the provinces, the territories, municipalities, private land owners, farmers, the environmental and scientific communities, aboriginal peoples and individual Canadians. The co-operative approach has had many successes. The peregrine falcon, for example, last year nested in Toronto for the first time in over 40 years. It is making a comeback, thanks to the dedicated work of hundreds if not thousands of people at all levels of government and in communities across the country.

Biologists from Timber West Forests and MacMillan Bloedel have been working with provincial governments to relocate the Vancouver Island marmot to the Nitinat alpine tundra. The handful of marmots in the Nanaimo watershed represent the entire world population. The relocation project is an effort to restore the species to an area it may have once occupied. These are examples, and there are many more, of what co-operation has done and can do.

In the Canadian context, we must begin with the understanding that species protection is a shared jurisdiction. It is not exclusive to either provincial governments or the federal government. All levels of government see the necessity and the benefits of working together on behalf of nature. There is a long history of co-operation with the provinces and territories to protect endangered species. Continued co-operation among all levels of government will be essential to the success of species recovery efforts.

In Charlottetown last year agreement in principle was reached on the national accord for the protection of species at risk. The accord recognizes that co-operation and collaboration are crucial to the conservation and the protection of species at risk. Conservation of species at risk is essential to conserving biological diversity in Canada.

Governments must play a leadership role in providing sound information and measures for conservation and protection. Complementary federal, provincial and territorial legislation and programs are needed to effectively address species conservation. Last but not least, Canadians must be involved.

The accord commits governments to providing complementary legislation and programs that provide for an effective protection of species at risk in Canada. The accord recognizes the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada as a source of independent advice on the status of species at risk nationally.

Finally, the accord establishes a ministerial level council for the conservation of Canadian endangered species. This council will provide the political direction and energy necessary to make the accord a success.

Four provinces, Manitoba, Quebec, New Brunswick and Ontario currently have endangered species legislation. Nova Scotia has just recently introduced an endangered species bill and the sky has not fallen. Other provinces and territories have programs specifically aimed at the protection of species at risk.

The government, through Bill C-65, will meet its commitment under the national accord for the protection of species at risk. This legislation meets our international obligations on the Convention on Biological Diversity.

In the same vein, the Minister of the Environment recently signed on behalf of the government a framework for co-operation and protection of the recovery of wild species at risk that occur in both the United States and Canada.

The framework for co-operation will encourage partnerships with all levels of government in both countries and the private sector in endangered species recovery efforts. Both agencies will develop a joint work plan and an initial list of shared priorities species by December 1997. I say bravo to the governments in both the United States and Canada for making such an historic agreement.

In recognition of the continental nature of endangered species and their habitat, Canada and the United States also intend to invite the participation of Mexico in the framework for co-operation. This cross-border co-operation is very important. For example, the monarch butterfly, added to our list at risk only last week, faces ongoing threats to its wintering habitat in Mexico. The monarch butterfly launches from two points in Ontario, one being in Long Point in my riding and then to Mexico where oftentimes it faces the danger of insecticides as well as a variety of other dangers. It is only through shared co-operation between Ontario and Mexico that we can properly protect the monarch butterfly.

Bill C-65 reflects the importance of federal leadership in the protection and recovery of our international cross-border species at risk. The federal government will ensure that these species receive immediate protection on listing and will lead recovery planning efforts, both within Canada and with our international partners.

This legislation is truly an example of co-operation. It does not replace action at the provincial level, it enhances it. It does not replace existing provincial frameworks, it enhances it.

The bill represents the traditional and constitutional roles that each jurisdiction has played in wildlife protection and conservation. New provisions have been introduced to more clearly recognize provincial and territorial authorities with respect to the management of endangered wildlife species.

In fact, in a letter to provincial governments, the federal government indicated its willingness and active interest in negotiating an equivalency agreement for the protection of international cross-border species. The bill recognizes that habitat protection is a fundamental requirement for the protection of a species.

We have difficult challenges to face. Our wetlands have been reduced by 70 per cent to 80 per cent in some parts of Canada. Old growth forests are down by 85 per cent to 90 per cent in some areas. Tall grass prairie has diminished by 99 per cent since the earliest settlements. The less natural habitat we have, the more important it is to protect what is left.

Under this bill, when a species is listed, anything that causes damage or destruction to its residence, whether a den, a nest or a burrow, will be prohibited. The legislation also goes beyond the protection of just the immediate residence of a given species. Recovery plans must address all threats to the survival of a species, including threats to critical habitat.

We will rely on scientific experts to tell us what constitutes a critical habitat and what measures are necessary for its protection. We owe it to future generations to make sure that the wildlife that exists in Canada in the 20th century is still here in the 21st century and beyond.

This is an important bill. I believe that preventing species from becoming extinct is an honourable goal, a goal that will ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a country as rich in wildlife as the one we enjoy today. I call on all members of the House to support the bill.

[Canada Endangered Species Protection Act, April 24th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, today marks an important step in introducing Canada's first ever federal legislation for the protection of endangered species.

Bill C-65 is an important bill. This government believes that preventing species from becoming extinct is an honourable purpose, a purpose that will ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a country as rich in wildlife as the one we enjoy today.

Furthermore, by preventing animals from becoming extinct, we also ensure that we have a healthy environment for ourselves. While it may seem irrelevant at times whether the grizzly bear disappears or the loggerhead shrike disappears, they in and of themselves can become indicators of damage that we are doing that affects us as human beings and the globe as a whole.

Some people have said that this bill goes too far and that it puts too high a value on nature. The government disagrees. Others have said that it does not go far enough in protecting the needs of endangered species. Again, the government disagrees. The attempt of the bill is to strike a balance between the various interests on the planet. The Government of Canada believes that we have the right balance.

This bill is based on the premise that the needs of the economy can be integrated with the needs of ecology, that we can protect endangered species and still have secure jobs and a healthy growing economy. This reflects the government's commitment to sustainable development.

This bill also recognizes that nature does not exist in a vacuum. People and jobs are also part of the equation. If we take away the jobs, people will build up resentments and defiance. We need their acceptance to buy into the laws for protecting the environment.

There are five important aspects of this legislation. First, we have a bill that creates an independent panel of experts, scientists to give us the facts about the status of endangered species in Canada.

What the bill attempts to do is to take politics out of the designation of which species are at risk. It is important to note that science and not politics, hearsay or uninformed opinion will determine what species are at risk, what species need help and what must be done to provide that help.

This independent arm's length group of experts is called the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada or COSEWIC for short. This will build upon 20 years of experience and provide for legal standing for this organization.

COSEWIC will make recommendations to the government which will produce a list of species receiving immediate protection. It will use its expertise and will also draw on the traditional knowledge of aboriginal Canadians to assess and identify species to be listed.

Each year the official list of species at risk in Canada will be made public. In fact, this list was made public last week. The picture it painted underscores the critical need for this legislation. COSEWIC told us that the number of endangered species in Canada has risen dramatically in the past year from 276 to 291, an increase of 15 species in the space of one year. This situation cannot be allowed to continue.

Had the Canadian endangered species act been in place when COSEWIC's list came out, this would have been the basis for demanding recovery plans for every species identified as endangered or threatened. These recovery plans would have been implemented in a timely fashion. All parties affected by the plan, such as landowners, industries, citizens, government would have been involved in the development and implementation of a plan. Without this legislation, the future of these species is in limbo.

Second, the bill recognizes that no single jurisdiction can meet the needs of all endangered species. Fish swim, birds fly and they do not recognize political boundaries. This is why we need partnerships and why it is very important that all governments agreed to a National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Charlottetown in early October 1996.

In October all governments in Canada made commitments to establish complementary legislation and programs to protect endangered species. The accord builds upon legislation that already exists in four provinces: New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

The bill also establishes a council of ministers as a mechanism for co-operation among federal, provincial and territorial governments with the goal of preventing species in Canada from becoming extinct as a consequence of human activity.

With this bill the federal government is doing its part. The legislation respects the traditional and constitutional roles that each jurisdiction has played in wildlife protection and conservation. New provisions have been introduced to more clearly recognize provincial and territorial authorities with respect to the management of endangered wildlife species.

Third, international cross-border animal species are better protected. The bill recognizes the importance of working co-operatively with other countries for the conservation of endangered species.

As part of our committee hearings we learned that the grizzly bear roams from northern Manitoba into southern Alberta and southern British Columbia. It is protected in the United States but would only be protected in Banff National Park in the Canadian jurisdiction. This bill will help deal with issues like this one. The bill also gives us the ability to take immediate action to protect animal species in imminent danger as they move across our borders.

Earlier this month the Minister of the Environment signed a framework for co-operation with the United States Department of the Interior for the protection and recovery of wild species at risk. This agreement helps us build on the excellent relationship we have with the United States on the management of wildlife across the border.

Together our two countries manage several migratory birds and other species. Our success in the recovery of the majestic whooping crane is a symbol recognized around the world of co-operation and partnership between different jurisdictions that share a common goal.

The two countries agreed to exchange information, to work together on recovery plans and to build a partnership with all levels of government, the private sector and the public for the conservation of wildlife and the ecosystems on which they depend. A workplan will be presented to the Minister of the Environment and the Secretary of the Interior by December of this year.

This legislation builds upon the voluntary efforts of a wide range of people in Canada, many of whom joined the Minister of the Environment when he tabled this bill last October. The Government of Canada sees the necessity and the benefits of working together on behalf of all our fellow creatures. This is very good news indeed. When it comes to a bird sitting on a rock, Canadians do not want to see politicians arguing over who has jurisdiction over the rock. They want us to work to make sure the bird can live and fly free. We have put nature before jurisdictional disputes.

Fourth, this bill will generate more public involvement in our quest for a better protection of species. Canadians can take part in all stages of the process, from proposing species for listing, to developing and implementing recovery plans, to participation in the enforcement of the act.

All information relating to work under the act will be made available through the establishment of a public registry. This will allow all Canadians to judge whether species are being protected from extinction and whether social and economic concerns of resources users and communities are being fairly considered.

Partners essential to the national effort include provinces, territories, private landowners, farmers, industry, the environmental and scientific communities, aboriginal peoples and individual Canadians. Each has an important and essential contribution to make. Of particular note are aboriginal peoples whose traditional stewardship of the lands has always included the protection of wildlife.

The Government of Canada recognizes the important contribution that farmers, ranchers and landowners have made to the protection of endangered species in Canada. Operation burrowing owl in the prairies is one of many examples of how the agricultural sector has worked in partnership with governments and environmental groups to protect species on the brink of extinction. These types of partnerships are exactly the sorts of agreements that are encouraged through the Canadian endangered species act.

Individual Canadians can call for investigations and they will have access to the courts for legal redress if they feel measures are not being adequately enforced. Civil actions will allow citizens to take action to ensure that governments live up to their commitments. It helps to ensure the government's accountability. We saw in the United States that when a government failed to enforce its environmental obligations, citizens actions rose and stepped into the vacuum that was left when governments did not do their job. However if governments do their job, there should be no need for citizens actions.

I realize this provision of the bill has been criticized as leading us down a slippery slope toward the American model. In that country the public's right to sue over environmental issues has been blamed for holding up development and a lot of other things. But comparing the legislation before us with the American legislation is like comparing apples and oranges.

Safeguards against civil actions which are frivolous or vexatious have been built directly into the legislation. Before a citizen can launch an action he has to apply to the government for an investigation and then prove in court that the government has acted unreasonably before he can move forward with his own citizen action. This presents a very high barrier to prevent frivolous civil litigation.

Fifth and finally, this legislation is a product of over two and a half years of consultation. Public meetings were held from coast to coast. Discussion papers were issued and an industry and environmental task force spent nearly a year developing key proposals, 80 per cent of which are reflected in this bill. We have heard from the fishing and forestry sectors. They have addressed their concerns. In addition, 94 per cent of Canadians support the legislation. The government has received nearly 80,000 letters and petitions on the issue. Public involvement has been and will continue to be a key feature of the legislation.

A three-year review period has been built into the legislation to enable the Government of Canada to review early progress and to make necessary adjustments to the legislation.

The amendments tabled today help to ensure the protection of endangered species in Canada remains fair, equitable and balanced. As we in government are watching for possible threats to our wildlife and providing the necessary remedies, Canadians will be watching us. They will not let government or industry slide backward. Nor should they. They will hold all legislators to account. We owe it to future generations to make sure the wildlife existing in Canada in the 20th century is still here in the 21st century and beyond.

Just last week experts told us that the Monarch butterfly, a backyard treasure known to every Canadian child, is in danger. There can be no clearer message to the House. We need the legislation and we need it now.

The Government of Canada is fully committed to providing effective protection to species at risk in this country. I call on all members to support the bill.

[Petitions, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the next four petitions signed by approximately 180 people calls on Parliament to join with the provincial governments to make a national highway system upgrading possible in 1997.

[Petitions, April 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have five petitions. The first petition has been signed by 26 people. It calls on Parliament to support unequivocally the enlargement of NATO to include all countries of central and eastern Europe that wish to join, excluding none a priori.

[Child Labour, March 10th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa.

The people of my riding of Elgin-Norfolk are horrified by recent images of child labour in the developing world.

Could the secretary of state tell us what were the results of a recent international conference on child labour and, furthermore, what Canada is doing in general to deal with the issue of child labour?

[Ferry Service, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and relates to transportation to Christian Island in Georgian Bay and Georgina Island in Lake Simcoe.

In 1995 the federal government and the Government of Ontario agreed to joint funding to replace the ferry servicing these communities. The new government in Ontario is refusing to honour that commitment.

What is the federal government doing to ensure these communities are serviced by a safe and efficient ferry service which will promote economic development on the islands?

[Impaired Driving, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to address this issue today. The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley has moved a motion asking the government to strengthen penalties for impaired driving offences in order to enhance deterrence and bring the penalties into line with the seriousness of the offence.

Let me say for the record that I support the motion of the hon. member and I am happy to do so. I do, however, want to in my speech today broaden the debate around this whole issue and say as a starting point generally I support what works. I think the whole issue of drunken driving and how to solve the issue of excessive drinking and the problems that arise from it is a complicated one and there are no simple solutions.

I support the member's concern for ensuring that penalties for drunken driving are proportional to the crime. I believe that whether penalties currently provided for in the Criminal Code are proportional to the offence of drunken driving is a debatable point and I look forward to this bill's being approved and passed on to committee where it can be debated more fully.

In considering the deterrent effect of criminal laws and criminal penalties we have to take into account the different types of people who commit drinking and driving offences and how they might be best influenced. Not everyone has the same motivation depending on their age, their background and not everyone will be affected the same way by a change in the law.

I believe that people are deterred from drinking and driving by a host of factors. Criminal law penalties for drinking and driving are undoubtedly an important factor but, as I have said, not the only factor.

The challenge is to find the point at which criminal penalties do represent a strong deterrent and the point at which they do not. If we stray beyond that point we risk a situation where we have little return in terms of increased deterrence for the effort placed into increasing the penalties. Such a situation would tell us that our efforts to decrease drinking and driving could be better located in other areas that would bring significantly greater deterrence.

There seems to be at least four different kinds of people who commit drinking and driving crimes. I am not sure that all four types would response positively simply because the criminal penalties for drinking and driving crimes were increased from what they are.

First, there are the young people who commit drinking and driving crimes. Some of them are not even of legal drinking age. For many of these, illicit drinking is a form of rebellion or an expression of their growing desire to be an adult or a response to peer pressure, or a combination of these factors and others. A concurrent drinking and driving crime might simply by a response to the same factors that precipitated the illicit drinking. With young people who drink and drive there may be little or no thought about any of the potential consequences of drinking and driving, whether it be death, injury, criminal consequences or licence and insurance consequences, even if there is the sensation that "it won't happen to me"; that well known teenage sense that they are invulnerable may overcome good sense as it often does in other circumstances.

Perhaps increased deterrence might be best accomplished for young persons through the use of peer counselling or public education. I think it entirely possible that increased penalties under the Criminal Code would be somewhat in the bottom half of the list of measures that would actually deter these young people who commit drinking and driving crimes.

It is doubtful to me that increased criminal penalties would have any greater effect on the young person's decision about drinking and driving than the current criminal penalties have.

A second type of person who commits drinking and driving crime is the otherwise responsible adult drinker who in a moment of bad judgment drinks too much and then makes the alcohol impaired decision to drive or who drinks and then takes an irresponsible but calculated risk to drive. I imagine that such calculated risks typically focuses on the likelihood of detection by the police, that any thought about personal safety or the safety of others is put out of mind and does not enter the equation.

It seems to me that increasing the penalties for drinking and driving crimes would not do much to deter such persons. They are weighing out whether they will get caught. They are not concerned that the minimum penalty is at present $300 or $1,000 or that they might have to spend 30 days in jail as a minimum for a second offence rather than the present 14 days for a second offence.

This group might be better deterred by focusing on certainty of detection or alternatives to driving or on messages that will help the individuals to think about small but unacceptable risk of death or injury to self or others. In other words, we might be better off instead of spending money on putting more people in jail, to spend more money on police as a deterrence to drinking and driving.

Next, there would appear to be a group of people with unique problems who choose to drink and drive. These are the alcoholics who compound a drinking problem with driving after they drink.

I am careful to note that there are, on the other side of the matter, some persons who are alcoholics who very responsibly choose not to drive after they drink. They find other solutions to any transportation needs they have after they have been drinking.

Perhaps conquering the underlying alcoholism provides the best hope for alcoholics who drive after drinking. However, not all alcoholics are prepared to admit that they have a problem that requires treatment.

Certainly it seems important to encourage alternatives to driving after drinking, given that many alcoholics are not prepared to admit to a problem or to submit to treatment.

It should disturb all of us that if we are going to be sending more people to jail we need also to put in more resources within the jails so that they can bring in alcohol problems or drug abuse problems so that at the end of the day we find something that actually does work and helps solve the problem.

There is a fourth group of persons who commit drinking and driving crimes. These are the people who simply do not care what happens to themselves or to others as a result of their behaviour. If they want to drink, they do and if they want to drive, they will. If somebody gets killed or injured along the way, that is just the way it goes.

Increasing the penalties for Criminal Code drinking and driving offences would have no impact on this small but very frightening group. Ultimately the decision about drinking and driving rests with individuals of all types and minds.

For those of us who do not drink and drive, the solution seems simple. If you drink, do not drive. If you cannot stay where you are, have someone drive you. If you cannot walk or take a taxi, then do not drink.

While to you and me the risk, however remote, of having a tragic accident and killing someone if we were to drink and drive is likely to be a great deterrent, there are those who are simply not deterred by this thought, nor are they deterred by the criminal law consequences, whether they be present penalties or increased penalties.

For these reasons, rather than boosting criminal penalties, I would prefer to see further development of drinking and driving counter measures that aim to change attitudes to the point where driving and drinking become completely unacceptable in all circumstances, not only in those circumstances where death or injury occurs.

This would necessarily involve finding ways to help people keep their drinking separate from any driving. Efforts would have to be specific to the characteristics of the different groups that I have broadly set out so that there would be the greatest effect for the work that is done.

More important, individuals would have to begin taking responsibilities for what they do and say in their homes and schools, offices and communities to prevent drinking and driving.

I am not suggesting that criminal law penalties have no deterrent value; quite the contrary. We all know that they are. They are and our present penalties already hold significant deterrent value.

However, it is far more effective to combine criminal penalties with a range of other attempts to combat drinking and driving. Training for service personnel in bars and the use of designated non-drinking drivers are examples of efforts that help prevent drinking and driving.

Public education that raises the issue and helps young people to think of the consequences and to make the decision not to drive after drinking before they find themselves at a party is another example.

Families can encourage all family members to call for a ride with no questions asked should they ever drink and not have a method of transportation available. Similarly, families can encourage their members to call for help rather than accept a ride from a drinking driver.

In short, we have to make it socially unacceptable to drink and drive. We are now getting there. No doubt there are people who obey the law if only because it is the law. For others, the risk of death or of killing someone else is a far greater deterrent than the increased penalty that might be imposed under the criminal law in the event that they were detected and convicted.

It is clear that the largest percentage of victims among persons killed by drinking drivers are the drinking drivers themselves and their passengers, rather than the other people in vehicles or on foot.

Rather than looking at someone who tries to keep someone else from driving after drinking as a killjoy or a busybody, we need to reach the point where intervening is the socially responsible thing to do.

Criminal law can be asked to do its part to reduce drinking and driving. In my view it already does. Whether it could do more is a debatable point but we should not rely solely on the criminal law and we should allow other systems and other players to play a role in order to end the tragic waste brought about through drinking and driving.

It is a trap to think that only increased penalties under the criminal law can make a difference.

[Petitions, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed by approximately 60 people from my riding. The petitioners are calling upon Parliament to urge the federal government to join with provincial governments to make the national highway system upgrading possible.

[Petitions, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 25 people from my riding. The petitioners are requesting Parliament to not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline in the next federal budget.

[Petitions, February 7th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first one is signed by 75 constituents of my riding. They are asking Parliament to support a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask Canadians whether or not they are in favour of federal government funding for abortions on demand.