Charles Caccia

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

Mr. Speaker, you may want to remind the hon. member to respect the rule of relevancy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will start by rebutting the argument by the member for Mercier which really lacks credibility in view of the fact that the performance of the provinces is very poor. The jurisdictional issue the member for Mercier raised is totally out of place.

Let me put on the record that in the case of the province of Quebec, which did pass legislation to protect endangered species in 1989, there were 26 species recommended by scientists to the government of Quebec for the purposes of being threatened, therefore requiring protection. In the meantime, since 1989 only three have been legally listed in the province of Quebec. That means that of the threatened species in that province only 12% have been protected. The record for Ontario is not that much better because only 23% have been protected.

There is a profoundly wrong assumption being made. One could devote the 10 minutes allocated to that topic this morning but I will not do that. The wrong assumption is the perception amongst the political culture that turtles, lizards and salamanders, wolves or grizzly bears, any of the 300 plus species that are listed as endangered know what political boundaries are all about. That is the assumption being made and it is wrong.

We have to move out of that mental box and realize that if we were to fight on the grounds of political boundaries we would never tackle the nature of this problem as demonstrated and proven by the statistics province by province, which I understand one of my colleagues will elaborate on later.

On Motion No. 23 the committee recommended that the minister, within one year after the bill being proclaimed, shall establish a national stewardship action plan that would create incentives and other measures to support voluntary stewardship actions taken by any government, organization or individual in Canada.

Motion No. 23 introduced by the government would unfortunately wipe out this measure in the bill. It goes from mandatory to discretionary and it is contrary to statements made by the minister on various occasions in which he quite rightly spoke about co-operation, voluntarism and the importance of promoting voluntary action in protecting species. Motion No. 23 would nullify what is in the bill and I wonder whether the minister is aware of the content of the amendment prepared by his department because it is in clear contradiction of his public statements and his deep commitment to fostering co-operation and voluntarism.

Motion No. 35 deals with the listing which was the object of intensive discussions and study in committee. The motion is not supportable. It is not desirable at all. It causes deep concern because the problem of listing is not solved by the amendment introduced by the government. The committee found a reasonable solution to the problem which would take into account both political accountability and the fact that elected representatives come under pressure when allocating a natural resource. Members may remember the case of cod. At the same time it would take into account the importance of the recommendations made by the scientific community.

The scientific listing is proposed by a group called COSEWIC. It is an appropriate committee of scientists. That list would be sent to cabinet. From that moment and for six months it would be up to the politicians, to the elected representatives who are accountable under our system, to decide whether or not to accept that list. I submit this is a reasonable approach. It would balance the industry pressures by preventing the extinction of a certain species as happened in the case of cod 10 years ago. Unfortunately however, the government is proposing an amendment that would favour the status quo which would pave the way for the repetition of past mistakes.

Motion No. 49 would delete the work done in committee. It recommended a number of appropriate measures for the minister such as consultation with provincial ministers, wildlife management boards and so on, as well as public consultation. Unfortunately and regrettably, the public consultation is deleted by the amendment.

The minister seems to be, or the department perhaps, opposed to any timelines that were included in the bill as reported to the House. Timelines are necessary to provide an incentive for the provinces to act quickly given the track record of some provinces in listing endangered species, particularly British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Ontario.

It is highly unlikely that a prohibition safety net could be implemented quickly, if at all, without some federal timelines in place. We see here a contradiction between public statements that have been made and the thrust of this particular amendment.

The effect of Motion No. 78 would be to delete the mandatory development of regulations that are needed to put into place the so-called action plans, which are an extremely important component of the bill.

The amendment proposed by the government removes a timeframe, with a rationale stating that 120 days is a very short timeframe for the development of regulations and that it would unnecessarily limit the amount of consultation in the development of regulations.

I would say that by removing the mandatory timeframe for the development of regulations to implement this action plan there is no guarantee that there will be swift action. This is a very important component of the bill, as reported back to you, Mr. Speaker, namely the retention of timeframes in this particular portion of the bill and in others as well.

This takes me to Motion No. 84. I will comment briefly on this motion by saying that it reverts back to the discretionary habitat protection on federal lands with no time limit for protection. The rationale given for explaining Motion No. 84 is, I would submit, erroneous because the clause of the committee's bill, as reported here, is purely co-operative in nature.

I regret that my time is up but, in conclusion, I would say that with this particular motion the government would be removing and violating very severely the stewardship agenda proposed in the bill.

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

I agree.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly express some thoughts about Motions Nos. 23, 35, 49, 56, 78, 84, 96 and 112. I will not comment on the large number of motions from 51 to 55 and 98 to 102 because the group of motions proposed by our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois would entirely gut the habitat safety net. They cannot be supported by anyone who knows the purpose of the bill in detail.

I express disappointment and profound regret for the amendments being advanced by the government today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the eloquence of the hon. member would better apply at the third reading stage of the bill rather than on the amendment before us. I wonder whether his speech is relevant to the item before us.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interventions made so far.

I draw members' attention to a document which was discussed in committee. It was prepared by Peter Pearse of Vancouver and is entitled “Sharing Responsibility: Principles and Procedures for Compensation Under the Species at Risk Act” which is the bill we are debating right now. It is a report to the Minister of the Environment. It is worthwhile to put on record the following paragraph which is found on page 18:

Compensation should be paid strictly to people who have a legal interest in the land subjected to the regulatory controls. This is not to say that others will not be adversely affected--contractors, employees, local communities and others, even taxpayers may suffer direct or indirect losses. But measurement of all the economic effects--positive as well as negative--that might ripple through a community or region would be unmanageable. In any event, the objective is to deal fairly with people whose property rights are infringed, which does not require an attempt to offset all other effects on other people and their interests. Moreover, I have found no precedent, even in expropriation law, for compensation to people who have no property rights infringed.

The author concludes on page 31:

At several points in this report I have emphasized the need for caution in developing and implementing the compensation arrangements provided by the proposed act. One reason for this is that the Species at Risk Act contemplates compensation only when owners of the affected land do not enter into cooperative arrangements, which, in effect, threatens to weaken incentives to cooperate.

That is a key sentence as far as I can make out. The author goes on:

Another reason is that providing compensation for environmental controls of this kind is a break from established policies of governments in Canada and implies a precedent with far-reaching implications. A third reason is the need to reconcile the sensitive, overlapping responsibilities and programs of federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal authorities in wildlife management.

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

Mr. Speaker, you read the numbers in your statement with the speed of light and I thought you mentioned Motion No. 50 under Group No. 3, which is not in the printed version that has been distributed. It could well be that I misheard you. If not, could you perhaps confirm that Motion No. 50 is included in Group No. 3?

[Boreal Forest, February 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is home to the world's largest remaining wilderness forest. Our boreal forest is a beautiful wilderness area with millions of square kilometres of sensitive woodlands, wetlands, fast flowing rivers and deep lakes, which protect caribou, wolves, bears, migrating birds, et cetera. Canada's boreal forest is increasingly under threat from logging, mining, oil exploration and hydroelectric dams.

Let us remember that the boreal forest played a vital role in our nation's history. Native peoples, and later voyageurs, used its mighty rivers to travel and discover this country.

Canada's boreal forest is a great legacy. Governments, federal and provincial, must ensure its protection. I ask Canadians to let their elected representatives know how strongly they disapprove of the heavy logging of the boreal forest. Future generations deserve the protection of this most valuable common good.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast should not misquote me. I did not say what he alleges I said.

[Privilege, February 1st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, that was the whole point I was trying to make. The matter has been debated already at length. One speaker for every party has already made an intervention. Accusations have been made about the Minister of National Defence which are totally unjustified. Allegations have been made about him which are most unfair. There is a point when something must be said, although he does not need to be defended, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence.

It seems to me, it being 1.15 in the afternoon, this debate having started at 10 o'clock this morning, and having the government agree to send the matter to a committee for full elaboration, examination and so on, that this matter should be voted upon and that we should resume the business of the nation in a proper and orderly fashion.

All that needs to be said about this issue has been said. The speeches are becoming redundant and, in some cases, even offensive. That is why it seemed to me only appropriate, and whether I am the dean of the House or not is irrelevant, to make an intervention. It seems to me that it is time to move on.