Rick Casson

[Committee Business and Reinstatement of Government Bills, October 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the House leader opposite is defeating his own argument. If the government prorogues to bring in a throne speech to give the government new direction but then brings in all the old bills, that is not right. There are two bills in particular we are worried about, Bills C-5 and C-15B. Why will the government not consider pulling these two out of this and dealing with them separately?

The fact is that there was a throne speech, a new direction and all of this for the country, and then here we come with all these old bills and legislation. It does not make sense.

[Agriculture, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has joked that he will flip a coin to decide if he will help farmers fight against foreign subsidies.

This flippant remark shows his true colours. He simply does not care. Canadians deserve better. Grain, oilseed and other export dependent producers are hardest hit by rising foreign subsidies. Compensation should be targeted to these farm families.

The Prime Minister has refused to tell farmers and has refused to tell the provinces if he will direct funding to offset trade injury.

Will new agricultural funding be directly targeted to export dependent producers for trade injury compensation?

[Agriculture, June 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Prime Minister will attempt to give Canadians the impression that he cares about farm families. The truth is far different.

Canadians need to see through this Liberal shell game. The budget documents for this year show that he has already cut over $675 million from last year's safety nets.

Will any announcement on agricultural funding do anything more than restore the $675 million cut from last year's agricultural budget?

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is only western Canadian farmers who face charges for violating the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Producers in other parts of the country have the freedom to make their own marketing decisions and process the grain grown on their farms. Western farmers should not be made into criminals for pursuing marketing choices.

Will the government impose a moratorium on future charges against western grain producers at least until the minister has time to respond to the report of the committee?

[Canadian Wheat Board, June 18th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board is still pursuing farmers who have challenged his monopoly. Farmers who have helped draw attention to the need for reform in the Canadian wheat and barley marketing are presently facing fines up to $4,000. Now even the Liberal members of the agriculture committee have recognized the need for change and have recommended a free market for wheat and barley.

Will the government listen and act on the committee's recommendation, and stop criminalizing farmers for trying to improve the incomes of their families?

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I think what we need to do here and why the amendment was brought forward was to send the bill back--

[Species At Risk Act, June 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Souris--Moose Mountain.

Before I get into the issue at hand, we have an environmental situation in my riding right now. We have been under a torrential downpour for two or three days. Pritchard Creek has received 280 millimetres of rain. Rivers and homes have been flooded. Cities have had problems maintaining their waste systems. I would like to let the people back home in southern Alberta and southern Saskatchewan to know that our thoughts are with them and that all members of the House of Commons certainly wish them well.

Getting to the species at risk act, Bill C-5, we have heard some debate today and certainly in the past about the different issues of the bill. The one thing that everybody maintains, and certainly we in the Canadian Alliance do, is that we need strong legislation to protect endangered species. We would support that if it was brought forward. We do not feel that what is being presented here will do the job.

We have to remember that the ultimate goal of the legislation is to protect species at risk. I think other members have alluded to that. Let us ensure that the end result of everything we do and everything we put into the legislation will be for the protection of species at risk and their habitat. Canadians want that. We have seen presentations. We have had people come forward from all aspects of Canadian society, whether it is in the resource sector, agriculture, the environment community or whoever, in urban centres and rural centres, and they want and have asked for species at risk legislation that works. I am afraid that we have not received that.

As I mentioned yesterday we had an opportunity a month or so ago to meet with some of our counterparts from the United States. The species at risk act was one of the items of debate. I feel that some of the things that were pointed out to us about the shortcomings of the legislation in the U.S. have been extended into this legislation. Some disagree with that, but we need to have full market value compensation in the legislation. In the legislation it states “that the minister shall make regulation”. However if it is to be done, why is it not in the legislation so that we can all support it and move forward feeling that the bill will do what it is supposed to do.

We have been told that the endangered species legislation in the United States has been used not to protect endangered species, but as a zoning law. It has been used as a law to stop development. That has become the scope of the bill instead of the aspect of protecting endangered species. People who want to stop certain developments have used the endangered species legislation to do that. We certainly want to avoid that here. We want to ensure that what is put forward is what is needed. If it is not effective, then all the time and energy that has been spent over the last number of years will go for naught.

Will the legislation work to protect one endangered species? I feel that if it is not properly mapped out in the legislation and if we have put too much emphasis on what will be in the regulations to follow as far as compensation and habitat protection are concerned, then we have failed.

There are a number of unanswered questions. We tried to get the minister to answer some yesterday but we did not get those answers. The big question is the compensation issue. It is an essential part of the protection of endangered species. I think we all agree with that. The species at risk act will not work unless fair market value compensation is guaranteed for property owners and resource users who suffer losses. That guarantee is not in the legislation.

Where is the assurance that property owners and resource users will receive fair market compensation for any property that is rendered unusable by the bill? We do not see that. Can the minister guarantee that any individual losses garnered by the bill will be fully compensated so that individual Canadians will be encouraged to protect species at risk rather than covertly avoiding the act out of fear of unreasonable economic loss? That is a key aspect.

All Canadians want endangered species protection laws. However the majority of Canadians would not be affected by any of the mitigation programs or any of the habitat programs that would be put in place. It would be the stewards of the land who right now are protecting species at risk on a voluntary basis. We must commend those who have. I have seen programs that people have put in place because they appreciate the environment and want to help protect it completely on a voluntary basis, Those programs have to be recognized, supported and encouraged.

If ranchers or resource companies feel that they will somehow be put at risk through the bill, and I believe they will, then they will want to stop some of those practices which will be an absolute shame.

The other issue is with respect to socioeconomic concerns, which have not been taken into account in the bill. There has been no effort to determine what those socioeconomic impacts will be and what the bill will mean to all Canadians. I think everybody agrees that all Canadians have to be a part of this. All Canadians want to protect endangered species. Therefore all Canadians should help foot the bill for that.

We want to ensure that is done, but we have not seen any numbers on what that will be. We have seen some money put into the bill for stewardship programs. Our concern is most of that will be used up by legal wrangling once the bill is challenged. Once some of the issues in the bill are challenged in the courts, a lot of the money will be used up through that aspect and the bureaucratic structure.

Can the minister assure Canadians that no individuals or sectors will be unfairly burdened with the cost of implementing the bill? No, he cannot, not the way the bill is structured. No provisions have been provided by the minister for a full socioeconomic analysis.

What will the compensation plans be? Regulation, regulation, that is what we hear. We have seen nothing definitive in the bill that would clarify some of the questions that have come forward.

I will quote an article by Tracy Wates. The last paragraph pretty well sums up the situation. The article states:

Many Canadians are very concerned about species at risk. However, if species are indeed at risk and need protecting, the solution is not federal legislation that employs command and control techniques while paying lip service to the concept of voluntary stewardship. Rather, a system of directed conservation that engages landowners and resource users while providing a complete system of compensation wold be much fairer and more effective.

It is unfortunate that this is the last chance we will have to speak to the bill before it leaves this place and goes to the Senate because we are working under closure today.

Before I conclude, I wish to move the following amendment. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “Canada” and substituting the following therefor:

“be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for the purpose of reconsidering all the clauses with a view to ensure that the legislation provides guaranteed compensation to land owners and provisions to protect farmers by ensuring that it would have to be proven that a person actually intended to destroy a protected species before there can be a conviction under the law.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are speaking under the closure motion that was passed earlier today. It is unfortunate that the government saw fit to stop the debate on this issue because it is one that has taken time and it needs more time for Canadians to bring forward their ideas and comments.

The committee did a good job. It met for many hours and hundreds of witnesses came forward with good ideas. Amendments were brought forward and a lot of work was done. Then when the bill came back to the House all of that work was reversed and the bill was put back to the way the government wanted it to be.

We support endangered species legislation and we always have, but we differ with the government on the way it is trying to deliver it. This heavy handed approach where huge penalties are brought in to force people into line is not the way to go.

A lot of the things that have been done in Canada to protect habitat and species have been done voluntarily. We have all witnessed areas that have done that.

In my own area, whenever the irrigation districts make a reservoir or try to improve the irrigation district they always leave wetlands and areas for wildlife to nest and thrive. I was in the eastern irrigation district in Brooks with the member for Medicine Hat and saw some areas where the burrowing owl nests. We saw burrowing owls, antelope and mule deer all in the same area. It was amazing. It is right along highway 36 just south of highway 1. They have made a conscious effort to protect that area. It can be done and it has been done.

Bringing in a heavy handed approach with huge penalties that will be put on people if they disturb some habitat even unintentionally is the wrong way to go.

I belong to the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group. We recently had an opportunity to be in the United States. We met with some congressmen and senators. One of the issues we talked about was species at risk. We brought forward what was happening in Canada with this bill and we had some comments back from some of the elected officials in the United States.

One member in particular told us that the endangered species protection act in the United States has turned into a zoning tool. It is being used to stop development. It is being used to change zoning laws. It has not done what it was intended to do in the beginning which was to protect endangered species. That is what our bill has been fashioned after with this heavy handed approach without recognizing the amount of work that has been done on the land and the fact that the best stewards of the land are the people who live there and earn their living either through farming or the natural resources sector. He cautioned everyone.

Some Canadian senators were there and they were listening. They are waiting for the bill to get to the Senate so they can have a closer look at it. Contrary to what has been said previously by others, they do not feel they are going to rubber stamp the bill. They have some concerns with it where it deals with the powers of the federal government and the powers of the provinces and how the federal government can apply a law over what the provinces already have. There will be some interesting discussions when the bill gets to the Senate.

The fact that this legislation does not address the compensation issue has been talked about at length. That is a concern and one of the things we were asking to have in the legislation. From day one, going back to previous bills, we have always said if there was not fair market value compensation in the legislation that we would not be able to support it.

We still cannot support the legislation as it exists because any talk of compensation would be put into regulation. That is just not good enough. If it is the intention of the government to offer compensation to landowners then it should be put in the legislation. We should spell it out so we all feel comfortable that it will be done.

Until that is put in, if affected landowners, even unknowingly, out doing whatever they do, whether it is ranching, farming or working in the natural resource sector, unintentionally disturb the habitat, they can be charged. Why would people want to continue with all the volunteer systems that have been put in place to protect these habitats knowing that if they make an area attractive to an endangered species and one does come to their land, that land could be taken out of production with no compensation to the landowners? It is just the reverse of what needs to be done.

If the compensation issue is taken care of upfront, it would encourage people to protect these species. We would have none of this shoot, shovel and shut up mentality that has crept into some of the areas of the United States because of bad legislation. These people do not go out of their way to do this. They do it because the legislation is designed in such a way that they cannot abide by it.

One of the things that has to be and should have been addressed is the whole issue of proper consultation, and not only in the timeframe of the bill being put together. As I say, there was a lot of consultation done by the chairman of the environment committee and his people. When amendments were made to the bill it started looking pretty good. Positive changes were made. Then when it came back to the House the government introduced amendments to reverse most of that work. That consultation period has taken place, but we also need consultation when the bill is in effect. We have to be able to go out and talk to landowners and let them know what the situation is and make them aware. This whole process needs to be carried on and on so that everyone can buy into the protection of endangered species.

The member for Churchill River, who just spoke, has a whole different outlook on this because of his background, his native upbringing. One of the ways of their culture, their history and their background is that they must consider how any decision they make or anything they do would affect the next seven generations. I feel that if we in this country would have had that in our minds going way back to the early days certainly we would have a better understanding of our species at risk and there certainly would not be as many species at risk. Mankind has done a terrible job with our environment over time. We need to make some changes. That is why we would support effective species at risk legislation if it were brought forward.

I want to get back to what has happened south of the border. If our country ever had a trial of legislation that the government was considering, all we would have to do is look to the United States to see that it has not worked and it will not work. After all the years that its legislation has been in place there is no evidence that any species at risk has been protected or brought back.

Until we get this issue of compensation into the legislation we cannot support the bill. I wish it had been done so that we could have supported the bill. There are other things we are concerned about, but that is our big issue. I am sure that would have gone a long way toward protecting species. As it exists now, there is still the danger that people will go out of their way to remove the habitat that endangered species would be attracted to or, indeed, remove a species itself.

It does not look like we will get that put in now because closure has been brought into effect. It will not happen. We will be voting on this later today, but as this bill is implemented, somewhere down the line I am sure that some serious changes will need to be made so that we can indeed protect the species we intend to protect.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think one of the points we are trying to make here is that he is not consulting with the right people.

Last week the government introduced an amendment to the legislation that would make protection of critical habitat on federal lands mandatory after 180 days. The amendment has serious implications for all people in rural communities and who work in the natural resources sector.

The mandatory protection would be given to the critical habit identified in a recovery strategy or an action plan. However a recovery strategy is not based on consultation with stakeholders and does not take into account the socioeconomic interests of Canadians, whereas an action plan does.

Will the government ensure that the communities are not destroyed by strong-handed government actions to protect critical habitat, and will the government change the amendment so that protection of critical habitat on federal lands is mandatory only after consultations have taken place in developing an action plan for species?

[Supply, June 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite said it was not the government's fault that this happened. I take exception to that.

It is the government that sends out these cheques, so if the provinces were overpaid then I, and many Canadians, would assume that it is the government's fault. It was indicated that the cabinet, the agencies and the provinces would get together to come up with a solution to this issue.

Does the member not understand and does he not think that the best solution for this problem is to forgive this money so it does not further deteriorate the health care, education and infrastructure systems in our country? If indeed this bill is sent back to the provinces, that is exactly what will happen.