Bernard Bigras

[Food Inspection, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in e-mails dated March 13, Dr. Louise Laferrière, an official with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, confirmed that a shipment was sold, delivered and then recalled by the agency.

Can the minister tell us if it is common for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to let grains be sold and delivered before even having been tested for the Starlink gene?

[Food Inspection, March 15th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, in October 2000, two ships transporting genetically modified feed corn arrived in the port of Montreal, from the United States. Under Canadian laws this type of corn is prohibited in Canada. One of the two shipments was intercepted, while the other one was recalled by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. One of the two shipments is still missing and may even have been used to feed cattle.

Will the minister confirm that one of the shipments of Starlink corn was sold on the market? Can he explain why?

[Immigration Act, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we too hope that it will continue. We hope the federal government will recognize the distinct character of Quebec programs as far as supervision is concerned.

That is a repeat request from the Quebec government, through its minister. He is asking for greater control over the selection of temporary workers.

Yes, we must go farther in the area of resources, recognize the distinct character of Quebec programs, and ensure also that Quebec have a responsibility in selecting temporary workers.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Immigration Act, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to what my colleague first said. The numbers speak for themselves: 600 people arrived by boat, as he just said, out of 24,000. It is a mere 2 to 3%. It is a minor current. This is in fact the problem. We tend to let a few minor currents like this one influence us to strengthen legislation. This is dangerous.

I still think that the illegal arrival of boats, particularly on the west coast, is a minor current and nothing to worry about. There are of course a number of shortcomings in the system itself, but I think strengthening the legislation and creating a detention process is going too far. I also agree with my colleague when he says that we will also have to strengthen our policies in general to make sure that we can integrate the newcomers in a society that really meets modern needs.

I am thinking in particular of the situation in Quebec. Quebec needs important resources to help the immigrants and the newcomers to Quebec society to integrate into the French community in a sensitive, warm and responsible way. In this respect, federal government resources are essential, particularly for those who are responsible for the integration of the newcomers into Quebec society.

[Immigration Act, February 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak today on Bill C-11 dealing basically with immigration and refugee protection. I am rather familiar with this bill, on which my colleague very eloquently expressed her point of view just a few minutes ago. This bill is quite similar to former Bill C-31.

I want to address a number of issues during my speech, including the population movements which occurred in the 20th century and which were important often for economic reasons, but also for political reasons.

I also want to talk about the detention of children. During consideration of Bill C-31, I was among those who thought it was crucial to address this particular issue for all kinds of reasons, for instance, because Canada has signed the international convention on the rights of the child. In my mind, it was important to uphold the rights of the child, but also the international conventions signed by Canada.

I think the whole issue regarding the detention of children should be clarified in Bill C-11, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and not in future regulations, as the government intends to do.

I would also like to touch on another issue, namely the administrative slowness of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This is a reality we have to deal with in urban ridings. It is part of our life. People come to see us in our constituency offices because they are facing unacceptably long delays, which, we have to admit, causes terrible human tragedies.

Families are often the main victims of this administrative slowness in the application review process by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I will also say a few words about illegal immigrants. When the government introduced Bill C-31, it was more or less responding to an alleged new reality that was emerging mostly in western Canada, where more and more illegal immigrants were coming to our country, particularly from Asia.

Members must realize that this phenomenon, which is indeed new, is marginal. It is not true that the majority of those who want to come here, either as permanent residents or as refugees, do it by illegal means. Yes, this phenomenon exists, but it is marginal. Unfortunately, the government is trying to use legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to respond to a new current in western Canada even though it is in fact a minor problem.

Another aspect of the question are the costs entailed by the slowness of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada process. I will come back shortly to a number of figures that are specific to the Montreal offices in terms of claimant waiting time and the number of claimants waiting.

Inevitably, this time frame and the slow administrative pace result in significant administrative costs to the provinces and the Government of Quebec for which the federal government should assume responsibility at some point, insofar as the law does not speed up the process and satisfactorily address the claims currently before the Immigration and Refugee Board.

The last part of my speech concerns the objectives Canada is setting for itself in terms of immigration, the number of new immigrants.

We know that the government has just reached, for the first time in many years, its immigration objectives for Canada.

Quebec too has its objectives, it must be pointed out, which go far beyond the thirty thousand or so immigrants it would like to take in. Often, the slow pace of the process blocks claims currently being made abroad.

I am thinking, among others, of immigration and the embassy in Paris, where Quebec would like to attract francophone immigrants. Unfortunately, Quebec cannot achieve its objectives because of the substantial amount of time involved in the administrative process.

I come back to what I was saying before. The first point concerns the matter of population movement. The movement of people in search of a land of refuge has been a striking phenomenon of the 20th century, which, far from improving, has increased in recent years, through an increase in situations of organized violence, of violations of human rights, of wars and of conflicts on the international scene.

In 1996 the Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that there were 26 million refugees in the world and 30 million displaced persons. Because western countries will take them in only in very small numbers, the great majority of refugees head for the poorest nations, those close to their own.

Nevertheless the governments of these nations are beginning to feel that the demand exceeds what they can offer. Many have adopted very restrictive deterrence measures which have shifted the demand to other countries.

Today Canada is one of the rare western countries to which those in danger may still try to apply for asylum under the Geneva convention.

The Geneva convention confirms the right of an individual to request asylum in a third country, but does not oblige the country to which application has been made to grant the request, in accordance with the rights and privileges of nations, whence the common notion that asylum is not a right but a privilege.

However, the welcome reserved for those seeking asylum is becoming increasingly limited, as can be seen from policies and procedures with respect to entry, application for refugee status and permanent residence, and from the policies regarding the support programs and services for which they are eligible.

The 1980s saw an increase in the number of people requesting asylum in Canada. The average since 1989 has jumped from 25,000 to 30,000 a year, one third of whom have settled in Quebec.

While they only represent a small proportion of the world total, these people in distress, who are largely from southern countries and therefore more visible than those who came in previous decades, because of their unfamiliar cultural and linguistic profiles, did disturb government authorities and the public in general.

That is when we politicians, the media and the public, in Quebec and throughout Canada, began using expressions such as phony refugees, abusers of the system and cheaters. Ten years later, these expressions are now commonly used but are not enough to move public opinion. This is why the government must now also protect the public against terrorists and criminals.

This is one of the new arguments used by Canada to justify the implementation of increasingly harsher policies against people seeking refuge here. The major argument used remains the economic weight of these asylum seekers.

While recognized throughout the world for its humanitarian traditions, Canada quickly developed, in the eighties, a tendency to restrict its open door policy for these people.

Today those who apply for refugee status from abroad or in Canada must overcome numerous obstacles before being allowed to settle here. The federal government has put in place measures to intercept, in transit areas abroad such as airports, people who have fled their country without first obtaining the documents required by Canada.

Yet those who flee their country often do not have access to these documents, either because they would risk their lives if they tried to get them from the authorities that deliver these documents, or because there is no place where they can get these documents given the country's political instability or state of war.

When they finally make it to Canada, the people are faced with a cumbersome and very slow legal process that can have a severe anxiogenic effect on them. First, the refugee status claim process is complicated and also costly since the claimant needs legal counsel to prepare and present his or her claim before the Immigration and Refugee Board. Then, the operations of the board need to be taken into consideration, including the way the hearings are carried out, the attitude of the commissioners and the nature of the arguments presented if a claim is rejected. Also, when a claim is turned down, no appeal on the merits can be made, the claimant can be sent back to his country of origin even if his life is in jeopardy because his country is at war or is guilty of massive violations of human rights.

It is important to note that Canada no longer deports claimants to Burundi as of June 1993 and to Afghanistan and Rwanda as of April 1994. Following many representations by the Canadian Council for Refugees and the Table de concertation des organismes de Montréal, Canada stopped deporting claimants to Algeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo, formerly Zaire. However, Canada has found a way around its commitment by sending back to the U.S. claimants who have come here through the United States, who have no qualms about deporting them to their countries of origin.

Even when claimants are granted refugee status, after being either selected overseas or recognized by the Immigration and Refugee Board, policies concerning permanent residency applications and family reunification can become a major disincentive to settle in Canada.

In short, precisely when asylum seekers are most in need of services they are not entitled to them. During the crucial period when they begin to adapt to their new environment and build their own perception of this new society, they are denied the right to be supported.

When they are destabilized the most, and when the risk of experiencing mental and physical health problems is the highest, they would be completely shut out, were it not for the human and social conscience of non governmental organizations working for the recognition of their rights. This is another issue I dealt with when Bill C-31 was debated.

I raised another issue in committee, and I remember asking a number of questions to the government, the officials and the minister. It had to do with the detention of minors and children.

Canada has signed the international convention on the rights of the child, which prohibits the detention of children in a number of situations. I asked the government to recognize this protection in a clause of the bill, and not in regulations, like it intended to do. I am forced to recognize that this will not necessarily be done this time around either.

I will point out that this bill, and this is important, must in this respect correspond to a number of articles and not simply lead us back to a number of regulations.

What is basic is to have this bill correspond to the convention, and more specifically to article 37( b ) of the convention on the rights of the child, which provides that States Parties shall ensure that:

No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;

The other aspect of the convention is article 22, which provides:

States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is seeking refugee status or who is considered a refugee in accordance with applicable international or domestic law and procedures shall, whether unaccompanied or accompanied by his or her parents or by any other person, receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance in the enjoyment of applicable rights set forth in the present Convention—

We want this protection enshrined in the law. Naturally we will have work to do in committee, and I am sure my colleague will see that these guarantees are clearly written into the law so that Canada may be consistent with the convention it signed.

The other aspect is the whole issue of the Immigration and Refugee Board. This bill and the minister's statements clearly show a willingness to improve the claim review process by the board.

We are totally open to this willingness to improve. Looking at the current situation, it is clear that the system is not working. We do not have to watch our words because it is clear. All those of us who have had to deal with refugee claimants in our ridings know that the system is not working.

In the Montreal office of the Immigration and Refugee Board, the average time for processing claims is estimated at ten months. People have to wait an average of ten months to have their claims processed. This means that, while these people wait, terrible human tragedies unfold. The other aspect is the whole issue of claimants. Their number exceeded 7,000 in the Montreal office at the end of 1999.

Overall, we are open to this bill. We hope the willingness shown by the government will lead to positive results in the application of the act. We will certainly work to improve this bill in committee.

[Species At Risk Act, February 21st, 2001]

Precisely, it is the federal government's own business. How can the government explain that some land and sites are currently contaminated? That contamination is getting into the water table. There is contamination of drinking water supplies in municipalities. My colleague from Sept-Îles, the hon. member for Manicouagan, strongly criticized the government for its inaction on the issue of the Sept-Îles airport.

Please explain why, in 2001, because of contaminated federal land, parents have to use bottled water to wash their kids. It is unacceptable.

Why do Shannon residents have to deal with contaminated water? How do you explain that the federal government has known since 1997 that the military base in Valcartier was contaminated and that it has always refused and is still refusing to co-operate with the government of Quebec?

I wrote to the minister at the beginning of the month and my letter remains unacknowledged, as if there was no emergency.

What we want is respect for our areas of jurisdiction. What we want is for the federal government to be proactive on environmental issues in its own areas of jurisdiction.

We will be examining this bill in detail. It seems that history is repeating itself once again. Need I remind the House that the government has introduced twice the bill now before the House? It was formerly known as Bill C-33. The provinces are not the only ones to oppose this bill, environmental groups do too, because it does not go far enough.

Once again, with this bill, the minister is alienating the provinces as well as the environmental groups. The minister should go back to the drawing board and introduce a bill that would protect endangered species in his own areas of jurisdiction and that would also respect our jurisdictions and avoid duplication with provincial legislation.

[Species At Risk Act, February 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak once more about the species at risk bill. The last time I spoke on this, I had mentioned a number of aspects which satisfied us in principle.

I mentioned that inevitably a number of international agreements had been signed. However, the most important agreement, the one which requires species at risk laws, is the 1992 agreement called the Convention on Biodiversity, which clearly states that every country has to establish and apply legislation aimed at protecting species at risk. Canada is one of the signatories of this convention, and we are proud of this fact, because we must immediately pass laws aimed at protecting species at risk in Canada.

This explains why, as early as 1989, the government of Quebec and the national assembly passed a law for the protection of species at risk.

I have already spoken about the importance of Canada's international commitments. I have also dealt with the importance of and reasons for introducing such legislation. I am not necessarily referring to this specific bill.

Today, I will compare some aspects of this bill with the act passed by Quebec.

I said that it was somehow paradoxical for the federal government to introduce a bill because we, on this side of the House, believe that it would duplicate the efforts made by Quebec in the area of identification.

I will remind the House of the principles of the act introduced by Quebec in 1989. They are the identification of species at risk, the legal designation of those species and the protection of aquatic environment. All this is inevitably linked to recovery plans which must be implemented in collaboration with industry, landowners and non-profit organizations working on a daily basis to preserve the heritage of Quebec. So there are a certain number of elements and measures incorporated in this act.

For example, on the whole issue of identification of species, the bill will give legal status to the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC, which has so far identified more than 340 plant and animal species.

Do we have the same type of tool in Quebec? Was it necessary to create a committee on species at risk for the sake of having a double security net? The answer is no. If members look at Quebec's act, they will soon see that the province created, back in 1989, an advisory committee composed of scientists who are knowledgeable about species at risk in Quebec and who have identified more than 19 plant and animal species.

This advisory committee already exists. It is working in co-operation with the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, or COSEWIC. However, we are disappointed by this government which has committed itself toward the government of Quebec and the provinces, through the harmonisation agreement on species at risk in Canada.

We must remember that the federal government promised the government of Quebec (The environment minister at the time was David Cliche) that it would co-operate with the provinces to ensure that it would not infringe upon provincial areas of jurisdiction nor duplicate provincial legislation.

Obviously, the federal government did not keep its promise. We believe that habitat protection comes under provincial jurisdiction. We believe that the federal government should not interfere in this area. Under several of the clauses in the bill now before the House, the federal government would be able to get involved in wildlife habitat management in Quebec.

The government talks about protecting critical habitat, and if that is not a direct infringement upon one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction, I do not know what it is. In clauses 37 through 73, that notion of critical habitat is directly applied. This is totally unacceptable.

It is unacceptable, because in Quebec we have species at risk legislation which sets out what we call recovery measures to protect the habitats.

Does the federal bill contain the same provisions? Again, the answer is yes. Why do we need federal legislation that sets out recovery plans when we already have some under Quebec legislation?

There is also the issue of compensation. The government is clearly improvising on the issue of compensation. During a briefing given by Environment Canada officials, we tried to ask them a few questions about the kind of compensation that would be provided to private landowners, but they were unable to give us a definite answer.

What we do know, in that regard, is that such compensation will be limited, because it says so in the bill. However, we would have liked to see a number of other provisions included in the bill. I am thinking, among other things, of the Pearse report, which said clearly that landowners who believed that they would suffer losses as a result of the application of the act would receive compensation equivalent to 50% of these losses.

If the bill before us today were clear on that, at least we would know what to expect. However, what we can expect from this government, and we see it very often in the bills introduced in the House, are provisions regarding regulations, which will be made at a later date and which we know nothing about.

As parliamentarians, we are asked to form an opinion and to take a stance on a bill when the regulations have not yet been tabled. This is totally unacceptable. If the government had wanted to be transparent, if it really had wanted people to know about the compensation process for landowners, then it would have tabled the regulations at the same time as the bill.

The enforcement issue is another aspect of this bill. I said a few moments ago that Quebec has had legislation on species at risk since 1989. I would add that not only does Quebec have legislation on species at risk, but it also has two other tools.

The first tool is the Quebec wildlife conservation act. In Quebec, we have species at risk legislation and perfectly adequate wildlife conservation legislation as well. We have fisheries regulations as well. These three enable us to protect our flora, our fauna and our aquatic environment.

Closer scrutiny of this bill, clauses 85 through 96 in particular, shows that the government plans to create a new authority. Its agents would intervene on both Quebec and Canadian territory.

How can we accept the creation of a new federal authority, when we in Quebec already have wildlife conservation officers? Those officers come under Quebec's wildlife conservation act. Why then create a new federal authority? How will it apply on our territory? That we do not know. We do not know what the protocols of intervention will be. We do not know what the authority's powers will be. This is totally unacceptable.

What is more, if this bill merely applied on crown lands, that is land under federal jurisdiction, we would not oppose it. If we were told “We are adopting a bill here in the House in order to protect endangered species in Canada's national parks” we would applaud that. We would applaud it because the protection of species is not restricted to a single territory, and we are fully aware of that.

What is more serious is that this legislation will not apply just to lands under federal jurisdiction. It is clearly indicated, and we must acknowledged that the minister has shown frankness, honesty and transparency by telling us so in this House, that the bill would also apply to Quebec lands.

The minister tells us that, to a certain extent, the bill would apply to lands belonging to the government of Quebec, including Quebec wildlife preserves. Imagine that, it would apply to lands managed by the government of Quebec. If the federal government deemed it necessary, agents of the federal authority could turn up on these Quebec owned and Quebec administered lands in order to enforce their law. If conflict is what it wants, I do not think the federal government could find a better way to stir it up.

Another aspect of this bill is the whole issue of offences, as if no offences are set out in the Quebec legislation. It is as if the Quebec law provides no offences for an individual who decides to stalk and kill an endangered species. The offences covered in the Quebec law are severe. Why have a federal law providing for offences as well?

The laws overlap. This is totally unacceptable, for two reasons. The first is because, and I have said this, there is blatant interference in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction. There is such blatant interference that the day the bill on endangered species was tabled, the minister acknowledged, to some extent, that the bill was open to legal challenge.

Have we the time for a legal challenge? If Quebec did not have a law, it would be a different matter. There is not only Quebec. It is as if the provinces were guilty of not protecting species. There are other provinces, including New Brunswick, that have a law as well. The expertise and the experience the Quebec government has acquired over 12 years of applying the law must be respected.

There is room for improvement, I agree. A law passed 12 years ago certainly needs updating, and I acknowledge this quite honestly. However, we must realize that the federal government is about to make a serious mistake by proposing this bill.

I think the only reason the government is considering tabling this bill is to be able to come meddling again in the name of environmental protection.

I understand the need for legislation on endangered species. Considering that there are over 70,000 wild species that exist and that have been identified in Canada during all these years, we can understand that. Far from me the idea of claiming that the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC, did not do a good job, on the contrary.

Currently, under this harmonization agreement, the two governments are co-operating. COSEWIC, which identified 15 extinct species, 87 endangered species, 75 threatened species and 151 vulnerable species, shows that there is a real need for legislation. This is a bill that could have some teeth.

Today we are asking the government to act responsibly in its own jurisdictions. On this issue, as in all environmental issues, we are asking the government to take action in its own jurisdictions, instead of lecturing the Quebec government as it often does about specific issues. Let the federal government take action.

I would have liked the minister to be present in the House today. I would have asked him why the federal government took so long before introducing a bill to protect species at risk. The Quebec government passed such legislation in 1989, but the federal government still does not have an act to protect species on its lands and sites. Why did the federal government wait so long, more than nine years after signing the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity?

Throughout this mandate, we will remind the federal government that it must act in its jurisdictions, not only as regard threatened species, but also the contamination of its sites.

[Supply, February 20th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry who unfortunately has to sit on this side of the House. That shows how the government chose to treat him on his arrival here.

He talked about transparency, openness and improvements to our electoral system and the way we run election campaigns, among other things.

I would like to know what the member thinks of the approach used by his own party in the last election campaign, where they promised to build roads and bridges here and there. What does he think about that?

[Species At Risk Act, February 19th, 2001]

My colleagues opposite just applauded. We do have an endangered species act in Quebec. Government members, including the Minister for International Trade, have just recognized by their applause that the matter is of vital importance.

Since our colleagues opposite are satisfied with the endangered species act, I will now talk about the bill on species at risk in Canada.

I must first remind the House that a number of international conventions inevitably led to Canada introducing this legislation. We wish this legislation had been quite different, but it inevitably had to be introduced in the House.

There are three or four reasons that justified the introduction of this bill in the House. First, on the international level, one has to remember the signing of the convention on wetlands, which is of international importance. This convention is quite important since at least 30% of species in Canada live in that kind of habitat and land.

A second important reason relating to commitments made by Canada at the international level is the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, which clearly required the introduction of this type of legislation in each country.

A third reason is, of course, the convention on conservation on migratory species of wild fauna, but the fundamental reason which also led to the introduction of the act respecting threatened or vulnerable species in Quebec is the 1992 convention on biodiversity. That convention stated clearly that countries had to introduce and bring into force legislative provisions to protect species at risk.

Why introduce legislation on species at risk and why give so much importance to this type of legislation? I said this type of legislation, not necessarily this piece of legislation. Why? Because we have witnessed a significant reduction in biodiversity over the last few years.

Our methods of producing and consuming have significantly altered our ecosystems. This has resulted in a significant reduction in organisms living in these ecosystems, which means that it also has an impact on species at risk. Of course, all this has an impact on the food chain.

All the different changes we made in our production methods have had an effect on biodiversity, and this is why we had to take measures to protect our species.

Legislation to protect species at risk is essential. However, we would have liked legislation that respects certain frameworks, not only a legislative framework, but also a constitutional framework.

It must be remembered that four provinces already have endangered species legislation. They are Ontario, British Columbia, New Brunswick and, of course, Quebec.

These provinces have passed a number of measures to identify and legally designate endangered species, and to implement programs and plans, like recovery plans, to ensure the continuity of our ecosystems and aquatic and plant habitats, and to ensure these species are not put at risk or made vulnerable.

In 1989 Quebec passed its own endangered species legislation. This was ground breaking legislation in those days. As I said earlier, the convention on biodiversity was not signed until 1992.

Before the signing of the international convention on biodiversity, calling for changes to legislation to protect endangered species, Quebec had already passed its own legislation, which was welcome by environmentalists and interested parties.

This legislation was meant to be and was flexible, because it was respectful of property holders and landowners. Its purpose was to identify and legally designate endangered species, and to provide a number of recovery plans to protect their habitat.

Quebec went even further in protecting endangered species. Later on, Quebec took two more measures: the fishery regulations and an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife. The goal of these three fundamental measures was to protect and preserve the species as well as the aquatic, plant and animal environments.

In no way, shape or form does the bill introduced in the House respect the forward looking approach taken by Quebec in 1989.

I cannot wait to see what decision some of the members opposite will come to. I cannot wait to see what the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry, who was a minister in 1989 under Robert Bourassa when the legislation was passed, will do. I cannot wait to see what the hon. member for Bonaventure—Gaspé—Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Pabok, who supported the legislation and urged the opposition to pass it, will do. They have introduced, supported and defended this kind of legislation.

These federal Liberal members from Quebec are about to vote for a federal bill that will duplicate the Quebec legislation and will infringe upon areas of provincial jurisdiction concerning the protection of critical habitat. We will see what the federal members from Quebec will decide. Chances are, they will show their true colours.

We will see what is going on when we will compare the two pieces of legislation, when we take the time to read through the bill the Minister of the Environment introduced a few weeks ago and compare it to the Quebec legislation. We will have to take into consideration not only the Quebec legislation on endangered species, but also the act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife and the regulations. That is when we will realize all the overlap there is. The first example of overlap deals with the identification of the species.

The federal act formalizes the status of COSEWIC, that is the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. So far, the committee has legally identified over 340 endangered species.

If someone told me today that Quebec does not have a committee to identify these threatened plant species, I would say that this double net is justified. We need a double net and there is one in place. It is in the form of an advisory committee made up of scientists. It is not a phoney committee, but an advisory committee made up of scientists who work at identifying the animal and plant species that are vulnerable and threatened.

In Quebec the advisory committee on threatened species works in close co-operation with COSEWIC. It works in such close co-operation with COSEWIC that Quebec signed a harmonization agreement on threatened and endangered species. The Quebec government signed that harmonization agreement back in 1996. At the time, it said “Quebec has an act and we will co-operate”.

Where is that harmonization agreement? Where is the federal government's pledge to respect provincial jurisdictions, to respect Quebec's legislation, as stated in the 1996 harmonization agreement? Whatever happened to that spirit of co-operation? Today, what we have before us is a bill that interferes in provincial jurisdictions. This is totally unacceptable.

If I were told that Quebec does not have a recovery plan for threatened species, I would say that there is a reason for having a double net. I would say that Quebec is not doing its job and lacks legislation, but the fact of the matter is that Quebec has recovery plans. The argument for the double net does not hold water. Quebec has a recovery strategy for when a species that is endangered is identified and its habitat must be protected in order to ensure survival.

The second aspect is the recovery plans, as proposed by the federal government. Quebec has one in its legislation.

The third aspect is compensation. This is pure improvisation here. One wonders why the federal government did not fully accept the recommendations of the Peter Pearse report, including that for 50% compensation of farmers and land owners. There was none of this. At the briefings, we asked the departmental staff what the principle of compensation was. The answer was “We are not really sure”. This is total improvization.

There are two basic reasons we are strongly opposed to this bill. I can assure the House that we are going to work very hard in committee to ensure that it does not get through.

First of all, because we believe that the entire habitat issue is a provincial responsibility.

Second, because we want the federal government to keep its word to respect Quebec legislation, which it gave when the harmonization agreement on endangered species was signed in 1996.

We call upon it to respect its signature and to ensure that the Quebec legislation is respected. This bill is headed toward duplication and overlap and, dare I say, perhaps a court challenge as well.

[Species At Risk Act, February 19th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the debate on this bill on species at risk in Canada.

In principle the Bloc Quebecois should be satisfied, and it is, that there is an endangered species act in Quebec.