Bernard Bigras

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, after this slough of petitions, I am pleased to rise again and resume my comments on Bill C-5, the Species at Risk Act.

At the outset of my speech, I was trying to convince the House that there was a major inconsistency between what the provinces and the federal government agreed to on October 2, 1996, under the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada, and what we are debating today in the House, Bill C-5.

While we completely agree with the principles of the accord with regards to conservation—I say this because Quebec has already had an act respecting threatened species in place since 1989, as I stated, in addition to an act respecting the conservation and development of wildlife, and fishing regulations to protect threatened and vulnerable species on its lands—I point out that there is an inconsistency. The principles laid out in the accord clearly indicate that when it comes to protecting species, the federal government is committed to improving its co-operation with the provinces.

Again, the Quebec legislation on endangered species was passed in 1989 by the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa. Some of the Liberal members who supported this legislation are sitting in this House today. They are about to accept the fact that the government will pass a bill that will duplicate a Quebec act, overlap existing measures and create a double safety net, this in spite of what the Quebec national assembly did in 1989.

We on this side of the House can only condemn this blatant violation of the principles of co-operation that underlie the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada.

Through this bill, the federal government is trying to set aside the Quebec model of protection, which works fine. Here is what the then Minister of the Environment said in 1996 regarding this accord:

We cannot remain indifferent to the fact that this agreement opens the door to overlap between the future federal legislation—

the “future federal legislation” being Bill C-5 now before us.

—and the act that has been in force since 1989, an act that works well and has already proven useful.

The then Minister of the Environment added:

We risk creating more red tape instead of dedicating ourselves to what really matters to us: the fate of endangered species.

The then Quebec Minister of the Environment was right. We have before us a bill that will allow a federal act to apply on the Quebec territory. This is useless duplication. As I mentioned, the Quebec act already exists in Quebec and has allowed for the legal identification of over 340 species. Not only does this legislation allow us to identify species but, since 1989, a series of measures have been in place to allow for the implementation of recovery plans for endangered and threatened species

Today, in the year 2002, as the federal government is about to adopt a bill that affects the provinces, it was already 12 years ago that Quebec was defining principles to legally establish recovery plans for certain species. Direct enforcement was also provided for.

Certain clauses of the bill, especially 32 and 33, provide for direct enforcement. The proposed legislation would create federal officers responsible for enforcing this federal legislation on lands which would not necessarily be designated federal only or even come under federal jurisdiction. This legislation would allow these officers to take action on lands under provincial jurisdiction, when Quebec has had wildlife conservation officers for years now under its act respecting the conservation of wildlife.

Why duplicate officers? Why add a second group of enforcement officers, when the first is doing its job perfectly well?

This bill goes against the 1996 principles underlying the protection of endangered species in Canada. These principles are about co-operation. With this bill, they are now deciding to dispense with co-operation and bring in powerful legislation giving the federal government authority to interfere directly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government is also deciding to make provision for a compensation scheme, but at the same time it is not, because it has just imposed a gag and has given itself permission to again put forward amendments which would alter the committee's decisions. This government could perfectly well have spelled out the compensation scheme. Beyond future regulations, it could have taken this golden opportunity to spell out the compensation scheme for landowners in Canada and in Quebec. But no. It has decided to ignore the studies done by the experts, such as well-known academic Mr. Pearse. The latter proposed that landowners who lost 10% of the value of their property be eligible for compensation of up to in excess of 50% of its value.

The government has decided to bring in legislation, but it is not sticking to its own jurisdiction. It has decided to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. Not only that, but it is refusing to tell us how the compensation scheme will work.

We are disappointed in the government's initiative and we will naturally be voting against it. A number of the amendments in Group No. 5 are, in our opinion, unacceptable. I will come back to this a little later. I now leave the floor to my colleagues.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak again on Bill C-5, which we are addressing again today.

We have got to the fifth group of motions of this major bill, which has stirred up opposition, not just on this side of the floor but also some considerable opposition leading to a crisis on the government side. This bill runs counter to what the protection of Canada's endangered species is all about.

A bit of a historical review will remind us that Quebec and some other provinces decided as early as 1996 to sign the national accord for the protection of species at risk in Canada. This was a commitment by the provinces to protect the species and habitat within their territory in order to provide greater protection to our ecosystems and to the habitat, which is where the endangered species are to be found.

At that time, the accord represented an important federal initiative. It set out a number of principles relating to co-operation and collaboration with the provinces. As far back as 1996, Quebec had presented the federal government with a number of initiatives and legislation that had already been enacted by the Bourassa government.

I have a very clear recollection of this endangered species legislation. It took effect in Quebec in 1989. It was adopted and sponsored by members on the other side of the national assembly, even Quebec Liberal MLAs voted in favour of this legislation which protected endangered species on Quebec territory.

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister told us earlier that his bill was complementary to the legislation already existing in Quebec. I would like to believe him.

But in reality this is not the case. I spoke to him about the Loi sur les espèces menacées passed in 1989. I will also speak to him about the Loi sur la conservation de la faune, which we passed in Quebec.

In Quebec, we have wildlife enforcement officers who cover the land under Quebec's jurisdiction. What the minister wants to create are federal officers who would not only be on federal lands but could also operate on Quebec's territory.

With this system, which means we have a government that is not co-operating with respect to the protection of endangered species, as it did in 1986, but rather a policing body, how does it intend to introduce this new officer in Quebec's jurisdiction?

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

“Mr. Speaker, on October 2, 1996, when the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada was signed, the Quebec Minister of the Environment said in Charlottetown, and I quote:

We cannot remain indifferent to the fact that this agreement opens the door to overlap between the future federal legislation and the act that has been in force since 1989.

He was referring of course to Bill C-5. He also indicated the following:

We risk creating more red tape instead of dedicating ourselves to what really matters to us: the fate of endangered species.

Does the minister not recognize that he is going against the Quebec model, a model which has existed for 11 or 12 years, which has proven itself and which works well? The minister is trying to derail the way endangered species are managed in Quebec. Does he not recognize that he is only creating a cumbersome administration that is totally unacceptable for the provinces?

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the minister surely knows that Quebec has had its own species at risk legislation since 1991, which is even one year before the earth summit was held.

Given the fact that, in 1996, Quebec and the provinces signed the Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada, in which co-operation was deemed to be a fundamental principle by the federal government, and given the fact the Quebec has had its own legislation for more than ten years and has ratified the accord that I just mentioned, can the minister assure us that Bill C-5 will not apply to Quebec as he has already promised?

[Species at Risk Act, June 10th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, as my Canadian Alliance colleague just mentioned, once again, there is a gag order on a bill on which there is no consensus within the government.

My question concerns the authority to make regulations under this bill. The department's backgrounder says that this authority encompasses not only crown land, but any land and water in Canada.

Can the minister assure the House today that the regulations that are yet to come will only apply to crown and federal lands and that he will concern himself with areas under his jurisdiction, such as wildlife reserves throughout Canada, and not land under provincial jurisdiction?

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

Of course, for cosmetic purposes, as my colleague from Hochelaga--Maisonneuve just reminded me.

However, let us keep in mind that those supreme court decisions are based on the fact that municipalities are under the Cities and Towns Act of Quebec and the Municipal Code of Quebec. It is therefore under Quebec legislation that the court supported the decisions of municipalities to prohibit the use of pesticides for cosmetic purposes.

What does the present situation require us to do? It requires what the government has decided to do, that is set up in Quebec a committee, a working group on this issue and develop a policy, which, hopefully, will be tabled soon.

What did this working group, the Cousineau working group, say? Many things. It came to the conclusion that the Government of Quebec wanted to eliminate the use of pesticides within five years in the case of lawns and within three years for trees and shrubs.

More basically, the working group recommended the implementation of a pest management code under which a national standard would be established in Quebec for the use of pesticides. This national standard, which would be the result of a consensus, would be implemented by the municipalities in Quebec.

I now come back to what I was saying earlier, which is that the federal government most certainly has an important role to play. We are disappointed because the government refused to support the Bloc amendments designed, among other things, to develop organic agriculture in Quebec and provide financial incentives, as is currently being done in Europe. The government opposed the establishment of a program proposed in committee by the Bloc Quebecois.

Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois had proposed to speed up the implementation of biopesticides registration. As we know, there are at present only 30 biopesticides sold on the Canadian market, compared to 150 in the United States. On this side of the House, we would have wished to speed up the implementation and registration process of those biopesticides, in order to have real pest control providing for the use of alternative solutions.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

—indeed, among others, the parliamentary secretary, who was acting as the government's puppet. He listened to his officials, but he was very far from listening to what the public really wanted. What people want is a process and tools to reduce the use of pesticides in Canada.

However, I must point out that this bill and the current initiative must not lead to a ban of pesticides. Let me explain. It is not that I do not think that pesticides must eventually be banned, in three or five years, but this must be done in the respect of the various jurisdictions.

We on this side of the House believe that the federal government's responsibility regarding pesticide management is limited to the registration and marketing of the products. We also believe that the provinces are responsible for managing the sale and use of pesticides, and that the municipalities have a responsibility regarding the implementation of certain rules or provisions adopted by various levels of government. In the case of municipalities, it is toward the provincial government.

I stress this point because a number of rulings have been issued. I am thinking for instance of a judgment concerning the town of Hudson. The supreme court supported the town of Hudson regarding the implementation of a bylaw banning the use of pesticides.

[Pest Control Products Act, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take the floor today in this debate on Bill C-53, an act to protect human health and safety and theenvironment by regulating products used for thecontrol of pests.

It was high time, to say the least, that the House debated such a bill. We should not forget that this bill will amend an existing statute that was enacted in 1969, some 33 years ago, to regulate pest control in Canada.

Ironically, many scientists have stated their views, a standing committee of the House has examined the impact of pesticides on human health and the environment, and many reports have demonstrated a direct impact on the health of children, infants and pregnant women, but the government has waited 33 years before introducing a bill to regulate the whole sector of pest control and pesticides.

It is all the more surprising since the environment commissioner has stated clearly enough her assessment of pesticides management in Canada. She said that more than 6,000 pesticides are available on the market, with 500 different active ingredients, and that the great majority of them have not been re-evaluated in Canada for many years. Some said they have not been re-evaluated since 1988.

These pesticides were still on the market for the public to buy, without any re-evaluation, and having been registered on the basis of 30 year old data, old analysis schemes, and old public health protection benchmarks. They are available on the market, but we do not necessarily know the impact they can have on the health of Quebecers and Canadians, and on the environment.

We said from the outset that we felt Bill C-53 was a step in the right direction to make this necessary reassessment of pesticides that are currently available on the market. At the time, we also indicated that this review of the existing legislation, through Bill C-53, should allow us to set up a process in keeping with the clearly stated criteria that were the object of a consensus a few years ago within the Standing Committee on the Environment. These criteria were based on the development of alternatives in the fight against pest in Canada.

This review of the bill was going to allow us to ensure that new means and tools would be put in place to control pest while protecting the environment.

It was under these circumstances that we proposed amendments in committee. Earlier, my colleagues from the NDP and the Conservative Party spoke eloquently about the strength of the Liberal majority, which fundamentally rejected the amendments proposed by the Bloc Quebecois.

[World Environment Day, June 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, World Environment Day can be marked in many ways, including walks, bicycle parades, concerts, essay and drawing contests in schools, tree plantings, recycling and clean-up campaigns, and many more activities as well.

In many countries, this event is an occasion to promote political interest and action. Everywhere, heads of state and elected representatives will take this opportunity to make a commitment to defending our environment. Let us hope that in Canada, these commitments will be transformed into tangible action to preserve our natural heritage. In this regard, we can only encourage the government to ratify the Kyoto protocol, and follow the recent lead of the European Union and Japan.

The Bloc Quebecois invites the public to take advantage of this World Environment Day to examine the state of our environment. Let us take the time to reflect on what each one of us must do, and let us join forces immediately to safeguard all life on the planet.