Jocelyne Girard-Bujold

[Species At Risk Act, May 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, let me continue from where I was.

In 1992, at the Rio summit, many nations of the world, including Canada, signed the Convention on Biological Diversity and made the commitment to adopt or maintain the necessary legislative and regulatory provisions to protect species and distinct populations at risk.

Soon after that, in their red book, the Liberals promised to ensure long term protection of species that live on our planet. In 1995, the current Minister of Canadian Heritage, then Minister of the Environment, introduced a first bill in that spirit. That bill gave rise to an incredible amount of protest and criticism, mainly from environmental groups.

One of the main objections to the bill had to do with the fact that the legislation would only apply to federal territories. Only four provinces, including Quebec, had a law on endangered species. Environmental groups argued that it was essential that the federal government legislate for the whole country.

In 1996, the federal government laid before the provincial and territorial environment ministers a Canadian Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk.

In October 1996, the ministers responsible for wildlife approved the accord in principle. Even though he signed the agreement, David Cliche, Quebec's Minister for the Environment, issued an independent press release, in which he said clearly that he could not remain indifferent to the fact that this accord opened the door to overlapping between federal and provincial legislation, and that a close eye would have to be kept on events.

Just a few weeks later, the federal government, through the then Minister of the Environment, Sergio Marchi, introduced Bill C-65, an act respecting the protection of wildlife species in Canada from extirpation or extinction, which was the forerunner of Bill C-33 now before the House.

I do not know whether this government is responsible or not, but I do know that at the time it was criticized by the provinces for the very broad powers it was assuming for the protection of wildlife species. Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories expressed deep concerns about the concept of cross-border species and the powers defined in the bill.

Many criticized the minister's about-face when he introduced his bill and said the exact opposite of what he had stated a few weeks earlier—funny how this government keeps doing this—about wanting to improve harmony between the provinces instead of imposing standards. The Liberals let Bill C-65 die on the order paper.

They are now bringing this issue back on the forefront, by introducing a so-called improved bill. Improved how? Improved with regard to provincial jurisdictions?

It is important to indicate that some federal legislation, like the Fisheries Act or the National Parks Act, allows the federal government to step in to protect some species, but there is no federal legislation directly dealing with that specific purpose.

If passed, Bill C-33 would be the first Canadian legal instrument directly concerned with the protection of endangered species.

Since pollution and migratory species know no boundaries, co-operation is required at the international level, as it is also, on a lower scale, at the national level. Canada federalism calls for co-operation between the provinces on this issue, since this is an area of shared jurisdiction in Canada. It is important to protect endangered species in Canada.

It is estimated that close to 70,000 known species have their habitat in Canada, many of which are found only in Canada. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, has designated 340 wildlife species as at risk in Canada. This organization established in 1978 is composed of representatives from every government agency, province and territory, as well as four national conservation agencies. It is the main player in the protection of species and it is responsible for establishing an index of the endangered species in Canada.

The COSEWIC indicated that, of the 340 wildlife species considered at risk in Canada, 12 are now extinct, 15 are extirpated species or no longer exist in the wild in Canada, 87 are endangered, 75 are threatened and 151 are vulnerable, which means that there are concerns about these species. Of the 97 species whose status was reassessed in recent years, 26 are now closer to becoming extinct. This was one of the findings in a guide to the Species at Risk Act published by the Government of Canada and released by the Department of Environment on April 11, 2000.

Needless to say that without appropriate legislation, be it federal or provincial, without enforcement measures and adequate resources, the COSEWIC initiatives are insignificant and their impact is limited. With the increase in the number of species facing extinction, the problem is serious. Consequently, we must adopt effective measures.

But does Bill C-33 really provide an additional protection that is enforceable? Will it really do something to improve the protection of our ecosystems and of the threatened species that are part of them?

I would like to address the issues involved here, according to the Bloc Quebecois. Despite the summary indication in the preamble about the shared responsibility for protecting endangered species, the bill's wording does not reflect this. It does not reflect reality, i.e. the fact that the main thrust of habitat protection is provincial.

Everything in fact suggests that the minister holds the power—and I say power advisedly—to impose his vision of protection on the provinces when he deems it necessary. In other words, his legislation will take de facto precedence over existing provincial legislation, even if the habitats fall solely under provincial jurisdiction.

Clause 10 stipulates that the minister “may—enter into an agreement—with respect to the administration of any provision of this Act”.

More precisely, in the section on general prohibitions, it is clearly stated in clause 34(2) that:

The Governor in Council may, on the recommendation of the Minister, by order, provide that sections 32 and 33 apply in lands in a province that are not federal lands—

What is more, it is indicated that if the minister deems that the law of a province—clause 34(3)—or of a territory—35(3)—does not protect the species, he must recommend to the governor in council that an order be made.

Granted, clauses 34(4)( a ) and 35(4)( a ) provide that “Before recommending the Governor in Council make an order under sub-section 2, the Minister must consult the appropriate provincial minister”. However, the bill only refers to consultation. The bill seems to say implicitly that in the case of disagreement, the opinion of the federal government will prevail.

As well, through clause 36, the bill forces the provinces who identify some species as threatened species not listed as endangered species by COSEWIC to apply the same restrictions to their own species as those imposed on designated species.

By doing so, the federal government is assuming the right to impose its own way of protecting species. Members of the Bloc are not convinced that constraints and fines would always be the avenues privileged by a province.

In terms of the recovery strategy, the terminology chosen also raises concerns in regard to the jurisdiction of provinces in that area. Clause 39 reads that “to the extent possible”, the recovery strategy must be prepared in co-operation with the provincial minister. I repeat, “to the extent possible”.

Action plans referred to in clauses 47 and 48 raise a similar concern. More particularly, the whole part of the bill dealing more directly with the critical habitat, namely clauses 57 to 64, allows the government to establish codes of practice and to impose national standards or guidelines, even if the federal government has no control over most of the territories concerned and no power over the management of resources on those lands.

Not only does the bill give broad discretionary powers to the Minister of the Environment, but it does not respect the division of powers as stated in the Constitution and as interpreted over the years. This bill truly interferes in an area under provincial jurisdiction and excludes the provinces from any real and direct input into the process. Existing legislation is totally ignored.

It is true that the protection of species can only be effective if habitats are also protected, but it is the responsibility of the provinces to manage these issues in co-operation with the various stakeholders.

Even though the minister supports, theoretically, the shared responsibility between the federal government and the provinces with regard to the protection of species, in reality, first, he disregards the division of powers and the provinces' responsibility with regard to the management of habitats and the protection of species; second, he ignores existing legislation; and, third, he assumes very broad powers with regard to the protection of species.

By acting this way, the federal government is going against true environmental harmonization between the various levels of government.

I will say a few words about the position of environmental groups and industry. Most environmental groups are opposed to the bill proposed by the Minister of the Environment. Those who should be his allies in any attempt to improve the protection of wildlife species find this bill totally useless and even dangerous.

Indeed, there has been much protest and criticism since the minister introduced his bill. Most stakeholders find the bill too weak. Even organizations representing the industry feel that the bill will not provide greater protection for species or specify the appropriate approach to protecting species living on a site under development.

Representatives of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association and of the Mining Association of Canada indicated that the government “could have taken a much stronger approach concerning federal land and natural areas, where constitutional jurisdiction is not challenged”. It must be noted that, in its present form, Bill C-33 is a bit scary for the representatives of certain industries, who believe that the compensation issues are insufficiently defined, as the representative of the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association said. As for the representative of the Mining Association of Canada, he said that the fines and legal proceedings were excessive in cases where a species was not deliberately killed.

However, the main problem that seems to be raised by all environmental groups is the fact that the decisions on the designation of species will be taken by the minister and his cabinet, and not by scientists. This has led many activists, such as the president of the Canadian Campaign for Endangered Species, to state that Bill C-33 was a “dismal failure” and that it will not ensure the protection of Canadian species.

Others, like one of the lawyers of the Sierra Club, made more qualified statements, but still denounced the weakness of the legislation and described as disgraceful the fact that such a discretionary power with respect to the designation of species be granted to politicians.

The minister is being criticized for resorting to a piecemeal approach dictated by cabinet, instead of a set of gentle measures promoting negotiation, but supported by compelling legal measures if an agreement cannot be reached.

Ignoring the issue of the division of responsibilities, environmentalists maintain that the federal government can and must get involved to legislate over all the lands, including provincial lands, to adequately protect migrating species. They add that only protecting the natural habitat of these species is not enough and that the whole critical habitat must be protected.

I will now outline the Government of Quebec's position on Bill C-33. As soon as the federal Minister of the Environment introduced his bill, his Quebec counterpart, Paul Bégin, said that the proposed legislation was just another example of useless duplication for Quebec.

Indeed, the Quebec minister indicated that Bill C-33 introduced by the federal government sought not only to create a safety net for endangered species and their habitat on federal lands, but also on the whole Quebec territory.

As mentioned earlier, while it may be appropriate for the federal government to legislate to protect migrating species, but this government has no constitutional authority regarding the management of habitats on provincial lands. The Quebec government cannot accept that the federal government infringe upon areas of provincial jurisdiction and dictate to Quebec how to protect its ecosystems when Quebec already has its own legislation protecting endangered species and their habitats.

Mr. Bégin said:

—Quebec has always behaved in a responsible and appropriate manner regarding the protection of the most threatened fauna and flora species and intends to keep on exercising its authority in this matter. We will never accept an umbrella piece of legislation covering all the initiatives in this area.

I was quoting from the press release regarding the federal legislation on wildlife species at risk in Canada released by the Quebec government on April 11, 2000 and which was issued by the office of the Minister of the Environment.

The Quebec government believes an act such as Bill C-33 would be acceptable if it excluded any species or habitat under provincial jurisdiction and applied to a province or territory only if this province or territory had explicitly asked that it did.

The Quebec government would not need to resort to such a provision since it passed its own legislation on the issue in the 1980s. Indeed, Quebec passed an act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in 1989, and it has its own act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife as well as fishery regulations.

These three acts give Quebec the means to identify species at risk, designate them legally as threatened or vulnerable species, protect their habitat, and implement recovery plans to adequately protect endangered species and habitats.

I would like to state the position of the Bloc Quebecois. Since species are disappearing more rapidly, the problem is serious, and we must take effective action.

But does Bill-33 really provide additional protection? Will this bill really improve the protection of ecosystems and of their endangered species? We think that the answer to these two questions is no.

[Species At Risk Act, May 15th, 2000]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak at second reading to Bill C-33, the Species at Risk Act.

Before starting my remarks, I would like to briefly put the bill in context. Biodiversity as a whole is the result of the evolution of the earth over 4.5 billion years. This evolutionary process created a wide selection of living organisms and natural environments on our planet. Together they form the ecosystems we know today, and each one plays a specific role in the food chain and contributes to the biological balance of the planet.

However, for some years, scientists have been warning about the disappearance of certain species in increasing numbers, as well as the rise in the number of species facing extinction or extremely vulnerable species.

The decrease or degradation of the biological diversity concerns us all and could have unpredictable consequences for our environment. Over the past few years, in Canada, as elsewhere in the world, efforts have been undertaken to try to slow down this process. Starting in the 1970s, international conventions were signed limiting the trade of certain animal and vegetal species in order to protect them from extinction.

Cases in point include the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as a Waterfowl Habitat, better known as the RAMSAR Convention. The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, more commonly known as CITES, was signed in 1973. In 1979, there was the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals.

In 1992, at the Rio summit—

[Importation Of Plutonium, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, by changing his import plans last January, the minister was thumbing his nose at democracy.

Can he stand up and make a commitment not to go back on his word about the shipping of MOX from Russia, and to consult the public on this?

[Importation Of Plutonium, May 12th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, according to information obtained from the Russia's Bochvar Institute, which is in charge of the Parallex project along with Atomic Energy of Canada, it seems that the air route is one of the means currently being considered for moving Russian MOX fuel to Canada.

Is the Minister of Natural Resources going to stop mocking the public, and show some transparency in this matter, by explaining to us why he is looking into shipment by air, when even Atomic Energy of Canada deemed this too dangerous last fall?

[Access To Information Act, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on February 24, I raised the issue of the importation of plutonium based MOX fuel from United States and Russia.

At the Moscow summit, in 1996, the Prime Minister unilaterally undertook to allow this dangerous product into Canada. The issue having been referred to it, the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs tabled, in December 1998, a unanimous report that clearly stated:

The Committee recommends that the Government reject the idea of burning MOX fuel in Canada because this option is totally unfeasible—

Yet, this committee was constituted of a majority of Liberal members, that is, the hon. member for Chatham—Kent Essex, the hon. member for Scarborough Centre, the hon. member for Brampton West—Mississauga, the hon. member for Toronto Centre—Rosedale, the hon. member for Halton, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant and the hon. member for Brampton Centre.

Early last fall, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited held public consultations, but for only 28 days. It is important to note that these consultations were not on the principle of the importation of plutonium but only on the route that the Russian and American shipments would follow.

In the Atomic Energy of Canada Limited report tabled on November 4, 1999, it was decided that the American MOX would be carried by truck and the Russian MOX by ship.

However, on January 10, the federal government changed unilaterally its initial plan and decided to import American MOX by air four days later.

The minister will not have me believe that Transport Canada had the time to assess this new plan in only four days, to make sure that the process was consistent with the regulations of the Atomic Energy Control Board, the regulations concerning the packaging of radioactive materials, the regulations of the International Civil Aviation Organization and the regulations of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited.

I would point out that the transportation of plutonium by air is illegal in the United States. Moreover, in a January 1999 report on the Parallex project, that is the plutonium importation project, the American Department of Energy said the following:

It is considered to be more dangerous to transport plutonium by air than by land, because accident risks are higher.

It is indecent for the natural resources minister to candidly declare in the House that this danger is non-existent north of the 49th parallel.

The American position is clear on this issue: no plutonium container is safe enough to withstand a plane crash. According to them, the 4H BUF containers used by Transport Canada last January could not withstand an impact at more than 30 miles an hour or a fire of more than 15 minutes.

The fact that the plans for the transportation of MOX fuel were changed unilaterally is a slap in the face of democracy. The minister should recognize that the importation of MOX fuel is a national issue affecting all Canadians and Quebecers.

The government tells us that this is done in support of international nuclear disarmament. However, the government should consider the fact that 50% to 66% of the initial mass of MOX fuel will remain in the form of waste. Therefore, it will no longer be a world problem, but a strictly Canadian problem. I doubt that the Americans and the Russians will agree to take back their waste.

Obviously, the Minister of Natural Resources never took the people's concerns into account in this matter. The 149 resolutions from municipalities and RCMs located along the St. Lawrence River opposing the project to import plutonium should bring the government to give in on this issue, as should the 96% negative comments from the general public.

It is unacceptable for the government not to ask the people if they approve of importing plutonium.

[The Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon following my colleagues from Laval Centre and from Joliette, who have both dealt in their remarks with the human side of the problem which should be taken into consideration before the government has this bill passed by the House.

I will draw the attention of the hon. members and of the government to statistics that are relevant to this problem, because I feel it is important. Beyond the remarks of my two colleagues, it is important to tell the government that statistics currently available show that the courts have not used the full range of sentences allowed by the criminal code. Far from it.

The stiffest prison sentence handed down for impaired driving causing death has been ten years. That is the maximum sentence imposed on offenders these days.

Judges, who are in the best position to consider the specifics of each offender, have not been using the whole range of sentences allowed by the criminal code. The criminal code already sets at 14 years the maximum sentence for impaired driving causing death. The ratio of offenders sent to prison after a conviction for impaired driving has dropped from 22% in 1994-95 to 19% in 1997-98.

The prison sentences brought down in these cases are for the most part less than two years. Hon. members heard correctly. The courts could sentence offenders to 14 years, but sentences are currently less than two years.

Why then pass legislation to allow life sentences if the courts are not inclined to make full use of the tools available to them already?

I would also like to cite other statistics. The offence of impaired driving causing death is not on the increase at the present time. In 1998, 103 people were charged with impaired driving causing death, the lowest figure for this offence since 1989.

In addition to what is stated in this bill, there are some preventive programs that have already had an effect.

Canada has become a champion as far as imprisonment is concerned. When something is going wrong, instead of looking into the problem, let's throw them in jail. Good riddance, we don't have to deal with the problem any more.

To echo the words of my colleague for Laval Centre, take the person, put him in a box and lock him up, that is all.

This runs counter to what the supreme court justices concluded in Gladue , where they faulted the federal legislator for being too quick to imprison delinquents. These are not my words. It is what two honourable justices of the supreme court said.

I will read a few excerpts from the decision in Gladue :

Canada is a world leader in many fields, particularly in the areas of progressive social policy and human rights. Unfortunately, our country is also distinguished as being a world leader in putting people in prison. Although the United States has by far the highest rate of incarceration among industrialized democracies, at over 600 inmates per 100,000 population, Canada's rate of approximately 130 inmates per 100,000 population places it second or third highest. Moreover, the rate at which Canadian courts have been imprisoning offenders has risen sharply in recent years, although there has been a slight decline of late.

I think that everybody in this House knows it, but many choose to ignore the day-to-day realities of our society. Since being elected as the member for Jonquière, I have noticed that, in its ivory tower, this government unilaterally adopts bills that are totally out of touch with the realities faced by the people when it comes to taking action.

This government is listening closely to the Canadian extreme right, which believes that the solution to any and every problem in Canada is the law of retaliation. These people believe that we should condemn first and then say “The longer you will stay in jail, the better it will be for you and for society”.

It is not true. This is not the way Quebecers think. This is not what we think. I find that the Quebec society is ahead of its time in many areas.

Prevention is required. What could be more beneficial to find solutions, to find an ideal way out and solve problems in society, than prevention programs?

This government is ignoring the prevention means we are advocating to help people. I am not saying that driving a vehicle while impaired is not serious, especially when lives are lost. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that, right now, we should establish prevention and education programs. We must start educating our children when they are young. In Quebec, we have very good prevention campaigns, aimed at society as a whole, which that drinking and driving is a crime.

That is certainly true, but we must also consider the fact that nobody can say it will never happen to them. Everybody has surely had a drink or two when they were extremely tired and then got behind the wheel. An accident could happen.

Such people are not criminals. I do not think that they are criminals. If something happens, it is just an accident. The notion of accident will have to be considered. In Quebec, we consider alcoholism a disease. We will have to invest a lot of money in research so people have places to go to be treated for alcoholism.

As my colleague for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques said earlier, there is an ignition interlock system with a breathalizer available in Canada, particularly in Quebec and in Alberta. The criminal code should be amended to allow judges to order an offender to have such a system installed on his or her vehicle as a condition of parole or in exchange for a reduction of the driving prohibition period.

I can see in the document that was given to me by my colleague that this system has been proven effective. Why not require all car manufacturers to install such a system on all vehicles?

We could also give tax breaks to those who have such a system installed on their vehicle. It would be a way to reduce the number of people who drink and drive.

As my colleague from Joliette said, during the holiday season, in Quebec, we have Operation Nez Rouge. I do not know if there is such a thing in the other provinces of Canada, but Nez Rouge is an organization that tells people “You want to celebrate during the holiday season; leave your keys and your car where you are, dial this telephone number and someone will come and pick you up and drive you home.”

Because of that, in Quebec, since Nez Rouge has been in operation, the number of people driving while impaired has significantly decreased during the holiday season. The success rate is extraordinary and I would like to say, incidentally, that this not for profit organization is manned by volunteers who provide the service. That is another way of saying that we have to deal with alcoholism.

It is not through legislation imposing life imprisonment that we will deal with the problem. This is not the way to make people more responsible. I am not talking about people who have repeatedly driven while impaired, who have no social conscience and get behind the wheel even though they know they are not allowed to drive. I am talking about individuals who are doing it once in their life and whose families and fellow workers will be branded for the rest of their life. That is not the way we should act in Canada; that is not the way the government should act to improve the situation and make society more responsible with regard to this scourge, which is less prevalent in our society, according to the statistics I mentioned earlier.

I ask the Minister of Justice to withdraw her bill. It is not constructive, it is repressive. I want to warn her and tell her that she is on the wrong track with the young offenders bill. It takes the same approach.

I think that right now this government is assuming that the people of this country are second-class citizens, that they lack judgement, that they are not aware and that they are not able to improve. That is unacceptable. The federal government has only one speed when it comes to criminal justice: overdrive.

This bill goes too far. In both the young offenders bill and the impaired driving bill, the Minister of Justice reveals her inability to manage complex problems without resorting to dangerously repressive measures. There is no justification for this attitude, because crime, I repeat, has been on the decrease in Canada for several years now. Furthermore, there are no studies showing that such an approach is effective.

We must guard against inflated sentencing, which bears a dangerous resemblance to an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Nobody will win in this mad race except the jailers.

But law and order politics are very popular politically, as the Minister of Justice is well aware. As for justice, and more specifically youth crime, there is also opposition to this bill because of the simplistic measures proposed by the federal government.

I think that this government will have to stop and think, that it will have to get back in touch with what people really experience every day, if our society is to improve and not be undermined by bills such as this one.

There is still time for the Minister of Justice to withdraw her bill and I and my fellow members of the Bloc Quebecois urge her to do so.

[The Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, before asking a question to my colleague from Laval Centre, I would like to congratulate her on her speech.

My colleague from Laval-Centre has just brought us back down to earth by telling us what a lot of people in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada are living every day. She has just reminded us that driving a vehicle while impaired is not in and of itself a criminal act that should lead to a life sentence or require a person to be taken out of society.

She has just told us that coercion gets us nowhere. It does not solve anything and it only postpones the real decisions that will have to be made if we really want to solve the problem.

In her wisdom, what does she think the government, which is so disconnected from everyday reality in Canada, should do? What should this government do with Bill C-18? How should people struggling with this problem be treated within the existing laws in Canada?

[The Criminal Code, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what the member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques had to say.

Could he tell us whether there are any other preventive measures—in addition to the one that Quebec and another province in Canada have found effective—that would prevent those who might drive while impaired from paying the extreme penalty contained in this bill introduced by the Minister of Justice?

[Importation Of Plutonium, May 11th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that the Liberal government's environmental management is insufficient in a number of ways. The importing of MOX is a good example.

After last-minute changes relating to Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd's shipping plan, the federal government imported 120 grams of plutonium by plane, a procedure that is illegal in the United States.

Yet shipping by air had been judged far too dangerous last fall during consultations with Atomic Energy of Canada.

Russia is now preparing to ship 600 grams of plutonium over here, which is five times more than initially planned. The federal government has a duty to consult people on the principle of importing plutonium.

To date, 152 municipalities and regional municipalities in Quebec have passed resolutions in opposition to this. I would invite the public to come and sign petitions available in all riding offices of the Bloc Quebecois members.

[Forest Biodiversity, May 9th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Nathalie Perron and Marc Plante, who are both residents of my region, for being recognized under the Forest Stewardship Recognition Program of Wildlife Habitat Canada.

That program seeks to recognize the concrete actions taken by people to support forest stewardship and the conservation of forest biodiversity.

In a world whose fauna and flora are increasingly threatened, it is important to change our forestry operations, to make the best decisions and to use proven ways to manage and conserve forests.

Nathalie and Marc were rewarded for organizing two forestry-wildlife forums held in Jonquière, in 1997 and 1999. These two events allowed participants to review the latest information on the impact of forestry operations on wildlife and its habitat, in addition to promoting innovative practices to protect forest biodiversity.

Bravo and congratulations to Nathalie and Marc. Continue your excellent work for sustainable development.