Garry Breitkreuz

[Nuclear Fuel Waste Act, February 26th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, Alliance members present will vote in the same manner that they did on the previous motion.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[Species at Risk Act, February 26th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to what the member for Davenport just said. I would like to reply to that at this point. I wish the rules of the House would allow for him to then come back and demonstrate where perhaps I am not correct in some of my challenges to what he is saying.

Suffice it to say that socioeconomic considerations are extremely important when we consider the species at risk bill which we are debating.

The accusation was made by my hon. colleague that we are interpreting the bill in a totally incorrect manner. If there is certain wording in legislation which allows certain groups in society to use that wording in a court of law to further their agenda, they will. It is as simple as that. We have to get the wording in this legislation right so that it does protect the species but also protects those who have an economic interest in the environment and the land on which those species reside. If we do not consider both issues, the issue of the species at risk and the economic impact on the landowner, we will accomplish the exact opposite of what the stated objectives of the bill are.

For example, if as the member has stated we have to ensure that the species is protected, and if in the end there are economic considerations, and we must put the priority on protecting the species and forget about the economic parts of it, I cannot agree with that. If we violate the rights of landowners to be properly compensated and simply plow ahead and say they cannot use that land as they wish and we do not compensate them properly, their property rights will have been violated and they will not go along with the objectives of the bill.

The whole premise that we are trying to protect species is based on whether it is going to be effective. That effectiveness will only happen if proper economic considerations are given to those whose land the species resides on. Therefore I cannot agree with it.

I will give an example of how this works. Right now there is a great debate in the country about the Kyoto agreement and carbon dioxide emissions. If in that agreement we have decided as a country that we will reduce our carbon dioxide emissions, but those objectives are not realistic, we will not achieve them. It is impossible.

It is quite clear that third world countries that are poor and do not have the resources to properly implement many of the objectives of the Kyoto agreement will not. We will actually move in the opposite direction. We have to consider the economic interests because unless the economy is functioning properly, we cannot meet the objectives of the Kyoto agreement.

It is the same with the species at risk bill. We have to have a strong economy. We have to consider the economic situation in order to properly protect species at risk.

That is why I was hoping the hon. member would be able to reply to my assertion that this has to happen.

There is so much I would like to address in the bill. I would like to tell those who are watching on television that we are debating a bill that is to protect endangered species. Our part of the debate is to ensure that the bill truly works because we agree with the objectives of the bill. We want to protect species that are endangered. However we as the official opposition are saying that if we do not get the legislation right, it is not going to happen. Various amendments have been put into groups and we are now debating the third group of amendments.

We are extensively trying to impress on the government that it should listen to us because we are in touch with many of the people who will be greatly affected by this. As I have said back in my riding, if we do not get the species at risk bill right, there will be a group of people, namely farmers, who will become a species at risk because they depend upon proper compensation if their land is deemed to have endangered species on it. That is the point we need to make.

The government has not looked at all of the social and economic impact of the bill on Canadians and it must do that. The minister came before the committee and was asked what kind of costs we would see from the bill. The minister said it would cost about $45 million but he was not sure.

We must have some idea of how much this will cost and we must have the funds in place to properly compensate people. If that is not part of the study that is done before the bill is passed and if that is not part of the consideration after the bill is passed, then it will not work. There has to be proper resources available to compensate farmers, ranchers or anyone who has land on which an endangered species resides.

Has the minister taken into account the costs of enforcement? Have the costs that will be placed on the industry and property users been properly investigated? At this point we see no evidence of that.

I agree with the member who just spoke. The standing committee in the House of Commons that examined this legislation quite clearly made recommendations and the government ignored them. We have concerns as well because so much of what we do as MPs is in committee. That is where we ensure we get the legislation right. If we do all that work and ensure that the committee has the proper recommendations but then those are ignored by government, we are wasting our time. I would agree with the member that we have to place importance on what committees have done.

The minister stated in committee that the legislation was open-ended in terms of what it would cost property owners. Property owners have to know. We cannot just leave it open-ended.

Compensation must be made available to property owners who lose their land due to the bill. To alleviate the social and economic costs of this bill, it is absolutely imperative that adequate compensation must be made. I may sound like a stuck record but that has to be part of the bill. We have to know what kind of compensation provisions will be made so that farmers and ranchers can plan for any expected costs and for the government to know what the total cost of this legislation will be.

The bill as it currently stands would preserve the minister's discretionary power. He would decide if someone would get compensation. He would decide whether provincial laws were effective or not, giving him the power to impose federal laws in provincial jurisdictions. This will never work. If there is no proper consultation, if there is no respect for lower levels of government which are closer to the people, this legislation will never be effective.

I had a great deal of experience with the gun control bill. Because the federal government plowed ahead with legislation and did not properly consult those affected, the provinces, the real stakeholders in this, the legislation will collapse. It is collapsing at this point already because of the huge error rate. However the costs have escalated and the non-compliance has made it that way.

We will have non-compliance with this legislation unless we get it right. We have talked about shoot, shovel and shut up. I will not go into that again but that is what will happen if we do not take into account the socioeconomic impacts this will have. This power in the hands of one person, namely the minister, totally eliminates any transparency in the bill. Dictatorial powers are being given to one person. If there is not a check and balance in this, it will simply not work.

I have gone through one-fifth of the notes that I have which express concern about the bill and I know that my time is just about up. However we have to have some kind of a balanced approach when it comes to listing endangered species. We cannot have the final decision resting with one person. There has to be checks and balances within the system.

We have committees and they should be allowed to do their work. I have heard that expression so many times from the government. This is an example of where it is not allowing the committee to have its say and to do its work.

National standards, developed in co-operation with the provinces, are absolutely imperative. We need some kind of accord or consensus agreement. The Canadian Alliance supports national standards that emerge from these sorts of consensus negotiations, but we reject that the federal government can create national standards all by itself. I hope at some further point I will be able to address this.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will briefly outline the substance of the petition.

A number of aboriginal people have been netting fish from a stocked lake in my area, Lake of the Prairies. These fish have been sold on the commercial market. The petitioners respect the aboriginal right to fish. However, Lake of the Prairies was built in the 1960s to act as a water reservoir and was stocked with fish for the benefit of all citizens to become an economic generator in that area.

The petitioners are asking that parliament enforce the laws of Canada so that those who take advantage of their status and breach federal laws be held accountable for their actions and that our government ensure that we have a single justice system for all citizens.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a number of petitions with hundreds of signatures from people in my riding. The petition states that whereas, aboriginal people over the last two months have been netting--

[Member for Calgary East, February 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate my friend and colleague from Calgary East on his recovery from surgery this week.

It is ironic that we are just at the end of heart and stroke week, a time in which health professionals remind us all that research money is needed to improve our knowledge of the cardio-vascular system and how to keep it functioning properly.

Our friend has had quite an experience. The surgery was successful but complications gave us all a most worrisome time. Using sedation doctors gave our friend a rest and a chance for his lungs to clear fluids. He has survived this, much to the relief of his family and many friends here in parliament.

The member is now resting at home and I know he would like to express his gratitude for the sincere outpouring of good wishes. To the doctors and nurses who performed their miracle on our colleague we say job well done

We offer our prayers to the member and his family. On behalf of the House we say Godspeed friend. We are looking for Deepak on CPAC. We miss him and hope to see him back soon.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say it is a pleasure to address the amendments that are before us on Bill C-5, but it is definitely not. I have not felt so vehemently opposed to a bill in a very long time.

It should be obvious to the government that virtually all the members we have heard speak today have objected vehemently to the bill, including a government cabinet minister and many Liberal MPs. It behooves the government to take a second look at this legislation and put it on hold. Definitely there are some serious flaws with it. I am going to draw attention to some of them. Before doing that I want to comment on the process.

We do not have nearly enough time to debate this issue. I have quite a number of concerns on this group of amendments alone and it would take much longer than 10 minutes to address them. We should put this bill on hold if for no other reason than to allow us to properly address all the issues that have arisen in this group of amendments.

We have put forward some very good amendments. One of the process objections I have is that when we put forward these amendments very often they are not seriously considered. Rarely does the government accept what we have suggested as a good, positive contribution to a bill. That is something else we should look at in the House. Many members on this side of the House represent Canadians in a way that is a very constructive and helpful in improving legislation. Very often the amendments we work so hard at drafting to improve the legislation are dismissed. That is not right.

For example, I worked on the gun control legislation. We put forward some very constructive suggestions and amendments to the bill. The government completely ignored them and $685 million later, the Liberals realized we were right. They are going to plow how many more hundreds of millions into a system that was supposed to cost less than $100 million originally, because the government does not listen to the opposition.

Hopefully the comments I have made will cause the government to pause and take a second look. I will now address the amendments.

Some aspects of the bill are contrary to 800 years of civil and criminal law tradition which we inherited from Great Britain and our ancestors. That in itself should cause us to take a serious second look at this bill. Let me explain. The amendment we propose would try to correct the flaw in that the bill makes it a criminal offence with a serious penalty to unwittingly do something, to unknowingly commit a crime. That has not been the case in law and the tradition we have had for 800 years. Our amendment says that no person shall knowingly kill, harm or harass. One key word needs to be added to the bill.

As the bill now stands, it is a criminal act to kill, harm or harass any one of the hundreds of endangered species or to interfere with their critical habitat. The fines are steep. The fines are up to $1 million for a corporation and a quarter of a million dollars for an individual. The bill provides for imprisonment for up to five years for an indictable offence. We are talking about something very serious.

I referred to another bill that I have a lot of experience with, the gun control bill. Again the Liberals put into criminal law the same kind of reverse onus. A person could accidentally make a mistake on a form that has to be filled out and could end up in jail for five to ten years. A person has to prove his or her innocence.

It used to be that someone had to be proven guilty and intended to break the law. The same problem exists with this bill. There is a reverse onus and that is not right.

Someone could commit an offence without knowing it and the bill does not require intent or even reckless behaviour to be a factor. Rather it places the burden of proof on the individual to prove that he or she was exercising due diligence should harm come to any endangered species. In this way the bill ignores one of the fundamental tenets of our western legal history: that criminal penalties are only given for offences committed with a criminal mind. The term in Latin is mens rea .

Is it fair to convict a person of a serious criminal offence when the person might have had no idea he or she was in danger of committing one? In order to protect themselves from breaking the law, people would have to become experts at recognizing many different species, such as the sage grouse, the barn owl, the aurora trout, the Atlantic salmon, the prairie lupine, or the American water willow. People would not only have to recognize them but would have to recognize their critical habitat in case they disturbed a place where some of these animals spend part of their lifecycle. If we know anything about our natural environment, we know that is almost impossible to do. Even if animals used to live in an area or might be reintroduced into an area, people could be charged. There are some serious problems with this aspect.

In my last address to the House I spoke about what would happen if we passed the bill as it is. I mentioned the shoot, shovel and shut up principle which we would end up having because of this kind of law. People who discover an endangered species on their land will shoot, shovel and bury it, and then shut up and not tell anybody because of the way the bill is structured.

What is the alternative? It is simply to have incentives built into the bill for people to want to preserve endangered species rather than being made criminals if they accidentally do something or cover up something. That is a flaw with the bill. There is not adequate compensation for those people who have endangered species on their land or come across endangered species on their land.

We support the goal of protecting endangered species. It is a laudable goal. It is a responsibility we take seriously. However it cannot be done in a heavy handed way as it is in the bill. People want to co-operate but this “got you” approach from the government is adversarial and does nothing to encourage co-operation. People might not know they are harming an endangered species but the government says “we got you”. All people can do is hope that the minister is reasonable in exercising his discretion. This trust me principle is not good enough.

How are companies, for example those involved with mineral or oil and gas exploration, supposed to demonstrate due diligence over operations covering hundreds of thousands of hectares when they do not even control all the external factors involved? It is totally unreasonable to expect that. That is why we suggest proper incentives should be put in the bill. That would be much more effective in meeting the goals of the bill.

There are 70 million hectares of agricultural land, that is over 150 million acres, and 25 million hectares of privately owned forest lands in Canada. How do farmers and operators exercise due diligence over these areas, especially when many are small operations with limited resources and no familiarity with endangered species regulations?

The minister knows this is a problem. At the standing committee on October 3, 2001, in response to a question from the member for Red Deer, the minister said:

It's a legitimate matter for concern. The accident, the unwitting destruction—it is a concern, and we want to give the maximum protection we can to the legitimate and honest person who makes a mistake, who unwittingly does that.

The minister's fine words really do not cut it. His bill would make such an honest person a criminal. We need some protection.

I wanted to address some other concerns and at this time I simply do not have the time to do it. We need to respect provincial jurisdiction and I wanted to speak out on that. I wanted to also talk a bit about the severe penalties and the whole mens rea intention of this bill. I am hoping that the government will put this off so that I have more opportunity at a later date to express a lot more of the concerns I have, just with this group of amendments.

[Firearms Registration, February 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago three RCMP officers showed up at a home in Langley, B.C. at 10 o'clock at night and advised the owner that they were there to seize his firearms because he did not have a firearms licence.

The homeowner took his valid firearms licence out of his wallet and showed it to the three officers. The RCMP officers said that there must have been a mistake in their records and left.

Maybe the solicitor general would like to explain why harassing law-abiding gun owners is a higher priority for the RCMP than tracking down suspected terrorists.

Maybe the justice minister can explain why his super-duper, $700 million gun registry cannot even let RCMP officers identify gun owners with a valid firearms licence. Was not the whole point of setting up the registry in the first place to save police time and resources?

Two ministers have fumbled the firearms file. Will this new minister be the third, or will he do the right thing and put an end to this firearms fiasco?

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

Mr. Speaker, anyone who is familiar with the bill would recognize immediately the relevance of what I am saying to these amendments.

The shoot, shovel and shut up mentality, if I need to explain it, is simply that if some bureaucrat decides that a species is at risk and that species is discovered on someone's land, probably the first thing that person would do is secretly go and shoot the particular animal because that land will be lost for future use if it is discovered that the species is there. After it is shot, it will be buried. That person then would not tell anyone. That is the shoot, shovel and shut up means and that ought to appear obviously relevant to what we are dealing with today.

Any property owner who suspects there is something on his land and who may lose his land will not let anyone know what has happened. That is why it is important we get adequate compensation. Bill C-5 as presently written will work in the same way as the American legislation to which I was referred earlier.

Without full, adequate compensation we have on our hands a piece of legislation that does not help the species. It in fact hurts them.

What gain would a farmer or rancher have by having an endangered species on his land? According to the legislation the gain would just be the warm, fuzzy feeling one gets from helping an endangered species while the family suffers, maybe even starves, because they can no longer make proper use of the land to make a living. That is really some reward. We need more than that.

If the government wants all private landowners and resource rights owners to co-operate wholeheartedly with the legislation, there must be full compensation to them. Bureaucrats must not dole out this compensation on a willy-nilly basis. It should be decided by us, the elected members of parliament, and put explicitly in this bill so that all concerned would know exactly what kind of support they would receive.

Our party has put forward amendments to ensure that compensation is coupled with fair and reasonable financial support to be put into the bill. We see that landowners, farmers and ranchers, as the frontline soldiers in protecting endangered species, need to be considered. These soldiers must be rewarded for their efforts and not punished.

What would happen if our amendments are ignored by the government? Both landowners and the environment would suffer. I described the shoot, shovel and shut up mentality. What is a good alternative? We need incentives built into the bill.

I will address this later, but we need to see what has happened in other jurisdictions and we need to put the proper amendments in here. Property rights must be addressed. This is a big issue. We do not have adequate property rights in the country. They were intentionally left out of the charter of rights in 1982. We must therefore make sure we have the proper amendments here.

I will close with this last quotation:

Without compensation there is no way we can co-operatively leave or turn back our land to a habitat state. If society feels that bulrushes, frogs and ducks are valuable then show us that value in dollars or the land will be growing something that pays.

I hope the government will listen to people who are very concerned about this.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak to Bill C-5, the species at risk act.

As the House knows, I come from a rural constituency where agriculture is the main engine driving the economic machine. When producers in my riding saw the details of the bill they were horrified. For farmers or ranchers land is the key to making a living. To take their land out of production is like taking a product away from a business owner. It removes the means by which they can earn a living.

Farmers and ranchers care about the environment. However when a piece of legislation crosses the line between helping the environment and infringing on property rights of landowners they draw the line.

I will share with my fellow members in the House and people watching the proceedings on television some of the comments I have received with regard to Bill C-5. The comments were gathered at an agricultural forum I hosted on January 15 in Yorkton. The agricultural forum was broadcast three times on the parliamentary channel the following week, three hours each time, so we know it is an important forum.

Members opposite should listen attentively because these are the voices of real people from rural Saskatchewan speaking up about this piece of legislation. I will quote their comments for the House. One of them said “I feel most farmers have an environmental conscience. However, farmers should not be expected to pay for all the costs of environmental stewardship which would benefit all of society”.

Another person said “There must be compensation for loss of production due to animal habitat”.

Another commented that “When they start tinkering around with our property rights a problem exists”.

That is an important comment because property rights are not adequately protected in our charter of rights and freedoms.

Another person in my riding said “Compensation should not only be adequate but it should be tied to future land values or the cost of living”.

Another said “If we have to lose income to save endangered species we should be compensated like everyone else”.

Is that not common sense?

Another person said “If wildlife has such a high value then compensation should have an equally high value. Has anyone considered that farmers will become endangered species?”

We are not talking about a bill that would be innocuous or not have an effect. It could have a very detrimental effect on farmers and they would like the House to listen to their concerns.

Another farmer commented that “The environment, endangered species and maintaining natural habitat are important. However agriculture seems to be expected to take up the largest load. Those in charge seem to see this as fair play. My respect is dwindling and my suspicion mounting towards those in charge”.

I will cite one last comment by a person who said “If humanity wishes to protect plants and animals let them chip in as taxpayers rather than force it on one segment of our population: farmers”.

Farmers are willing to do their part in maintaining the environment and protecting endangered species. However they want everyone to share the load and they want this to be fair legislation. I am delivering that message here today.

Members will have noticed that the underlying theme throughout the comments is compensation, not a one time payment but compensation that takes into account that the land is the necessary ingredient in the way these people make their living. It is not just me speaking here today to this terrible bill. It is my constituents.

On October 3 the minister stated in front of the committee that compensation would be assessed on a case by case basis. In other words, we are expected to read their lips. They are saying “Trust us, we will do what is right”. We have seen this happen before and the people of Canada have been hung out to dry because their rights and privileges were not respected. In other words, the minister has stated that bureaucrats would decide who gets and does not get compensation.

Let me say one thing. Farmers and ranchers have about as much trust in federal bureaucrats as some athletes do in the international figure skating judges. I will give a prime example of what I am talking about. The AIDA and CFIP programs put in place to help struggling farmers have done nothing. Farmers call my office on a daily basis with problems related to these programs. The farmer who really needs help gets nothing.

This is the same government that is saying “Trust us. We will do what is right and compensate farmers”. What has happened is that the hands of federal bureaucrats have destroyed the agricultural producer. We cannot let it continue with this bill as it stands currently.

Let me point out that we in the Canadian Alliance are committed to preserving our country's natural environment, its endangered species and the sustainable development of our rich natural resources so that future generations of Canadians can reap the rewards as much as we have. However we in the Canadian Alliance will not do this on the backs of private landowners and their families. That is wrong.

The United States introduced similar legislation however there was one flaw: no adequate compensation. What happened? It created a shoot, shovel and shut up mentality. I ask--

[Supply, February 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member makes a good point. We are talking about the weak and vulnerable in society: women and children who are most likely to be targeted by sex offenders.

The government has set up a completely separate system to register gun owners, law abiding citizens, but when it comes to criminals and sex offenders it does not do that. That is what we are asking for.