Madam Speaker, Bill C-65 is a glaring example of the prejudice of the Liberal government against people who make their living off the land. It regards us all as thoughtless, irresponsible and uncaring people who have to be restrained by big mama government from despoiling the environment, killing every living thing, all non-human life forms, and, as an aside, from shooting ornery neighbours before breakfast with our unregistered firearms.
Bill C-65 dismisses co-operative effort in favour of coercion by the urban elites who just know they are morally and intellectually superior to farmers, ranchers and woodlot owners. Instead of offering consultation and co-operation to rural people, the government has opted to threaten them with fines and jail terms.
The abundance of proposed amendments to the bill should give some indication of its defectiveness. I draw the attention of the House to Motion No. 86. It refers to a paragraph under section 59(3)(b) wherein the government is prohibited from disclosing the name of a plaintiff in an environmental action.
This is so appalling that I initially thought it was a misprint. This is on par with provincial proposals of snitch lines for welfare cheaters. It is fundamental to a civil society that accusers not have anonymity except in cases where identifying them might endanger their lives. I hardly think a farmer accused of killing a swift fox would take out a contract on his accuser. It is a fundamental principle of justice that an accused must have the right to face his or her accusers. Even murderers have that right.
The bottom line is that with guaranteed anonymity there is absolutely nothing to deter someone, whether an environmentalist or a neighbour with a grievance, from filing a frivolous complaint, a vexatious complaint. There is no penalty, no economic sacrifice, not even community disapproval for making an underhanded move against someone who may or may not have done something against the act. I do not understand how this provision managed to slip through committee.
Motions Nos. 88, 91 to 100 and 104 to 109 propose the deletion of sections 60 to 76 of the act. These are the sections which give private citizens the right to file civil suits if they believe that the Canadian Wildlife Service is lax in the performance of its duties.
When the state introduces legislation to protect what it considers to be the interests of society as a whole, then it should also take whatever action is necessary under that legislation to ensure its effectiveness, not delegate the right to individuals who might have their own agendas.
We do not need U.S. style government by litigation in Canada. These sections open the door for harassment of land owners by eco-vigilantes. It is unreasonable and unfair to expect farmers, ranchers and woodlot owners, many of whom are struggling to make a living, to defend themselves against well financed environmental groups, many of which are partly funded by government.
Within this group I wish to draw particular attention to section 65 which allows third parties to participate in court actions, get this, "in order to provide fair and adequate representation of the private and public interests involved". Really. This is from the government whose original discussions of the background material leading to this bill were held only in cities across Canada.
I quote Nancy Greene Raine on this little exercise in consultation, Liberal government style: "It is a sad day when legislation can be drafted without the input of the people who will be affected".
I would like to backtrack a little and comment on section 52. That section authorizes warrantless search and seizure. This sounds familiar. I would almost think it was written by our Minister of Justice with his well known disdain for due process and individual rights as exemplified in the same type of provisions in Bill C-68. Perhaps he and this government just do not like rural people or perhaps the Liberals are on a power trip.
One of the worst features of Bill C-65 is that if a land owner loses all or part of his or her livelihood due to a government or private action on behalf of endangered species, a requirement to fence out water holes for example, there is no firm provision for compensation. This is also typical of the government's attitude toward ordinary citizens in other matters.
If a government is going to encourage individual Canadians to inform on or launch lawsuits against their neighbours in the name of the greater good, then fairness would dictate that provisions be put in place for those affected to recover all the costs they incur as a result of such action if and when the courts rule that they are not guilty of an offence under the act.
This lack of provision for just treatment of affected people could actually endanger the very creatures which the legislation is designed to protect. This House should be aware that there are already U.S. real estate advertisements certifying that land being offered for sale is free of endangered species. How can they be so sure? Why would they want it to be free of endangered species? Maybe somebody took a bit of underhanded action to see that there were no endangered species left on the land and maybe the reason they have made this certification is that nobody would want to buy a piece of land if they knew there were kangaroo rats on it.
Because of this sort of thing, there is a very strong feeling now in the United States that its 21-year old environmental protection act has been beneficial only to one predatory species, namely lawyers, but not beneficial to endangered species.
In January the hon. member for Davenport was quoted as follows: "We have to take a soft approach at first if people are going to accept this type of regulation". There is a slip of a Liberal lip. The scary part of this is not so much the deviousness expressed by the member but that he probably sincerely believes that Bill C-65 represents a reasonable and soft approach.
In the moments I have left I would like to read to the House a few quotes from a brief presented to the standing committee by the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. This paragraph says it all: "The legislation before the committee represents a U.S. approach to endangered species protection. It relies heavily on regulation and enforcement and contains very little to encourage voluntary co-operation and partnerships. In our view the legislation in its current form will create conflict between land owners and conservation groups and will be detrimental to the future of wildlife on private lands".
Further the brief states: "This bill erodes the rights of individual Canadians, particularly with respect to their rights to own and enjoy property. We believe the erosion of property rights is damaging to the cause of wildlife and endangered species and the record of government in protecting species over which it has direct control and which are not on private land, for example the Atlantic cod and the Pacific salmon, does not create a lot of confidence in its ability to maintain and develop long term protection measures".
