Federal environment minister David Anderson, who still hopes to have endangered species legislation in effect before an election is called, has warned environmentalists in his own party not to make the proposed bill tougher.
He said amendments to make the bill more rigidly regulatory and increasingly mandatory could lead governments and landowners to ignore or subvert the legislation.
“If we have a system where the governments in question … don’t want something to happen and then it happens because of the automatic working of a piece of legislation that was passed some years before, you’ll get in a situation where the legislation disappears pretty fast,” he told the House of Commons environment committee last week.
Read Also
StatCan stands by its model-based crop forecast
Statistics Canada’s model-based production estimates are under scrutiny, but agency says it is confident in the results.
“If the legislation is to work to protect endangered species, it has to … support the desire to protect. It can’t be done only in this building. It has to work on the ground.”
The legislation proposed last spring by Anderson is a combination of voluntary and mandatory action to preserve or reclaim threatened habitat for species at risk.
It holds out the promise of voluntary, co-operative habitat reclamation projects and some compensation to private landowners when their ability to make a living is disrupted by the need to set aside habitat.
In one of the more controversial proposals, a list of endangered species will be drawn up and updated by qualified scientists, but cabinet will decide which species to protect under the program.
Anderson has defended that as a necessary political compromise, since resources are required for habitat protection or reclamation, and governments cannot lose the ability to make the decisions on resource allocation.
Within his own Liberal caucus, he has been under attack for producing a weak bill. They see the environment committee, chaired by Toronto Liberal Charles Caccia, as a forum for strengthening the bill.
But Anderson won’t promise to follow the wishes of the committee, which last week began hearing witnesses.
“Canadians are concerned about the loss of species and their habitat,” southern Ontario Liberal Gar Knutson told Anderson in the Commons Sept. 19. “They are pleased to see legislation to address this issue but there are still substantial concerns.”
He asked for assurances from the environment minister that the government would consider committee amendments “with a genuinely open mind” and that they would not “simply be dismissed out of hand.”
To opposition shouts, Anderson assured him he would consider any amendments.
Moments later in committee, Anderson was warning MPs not to be too radical in their proposed changes.
During House debate last week, the Bloc QuŽbecois showed signs of trying to delay second reading approval by scheduling speaker after speaker to complain that Ottawa’s attempts to intervene in habitat protection is a violation of Quebec’s jurisdiction over resources.
Canadian Alliance MPs argued the government has to inject more protection for landowners into the legislation.
Vancouver Island MP Keith Martin said habitat loss, use of pesticides, agricultural practices and clear-cut forestry practices all are to blame for habitat destruction.
“(We) would love to see the government take a more aggressive stance in this regard by balancing off the protection of habitat with the understanding that landowners and property rights have to be protected too,” he said. “It is not always necessary … to take land away from the private sector,” said Martin.
“As we have seen in Saskatchewan, most farmers and other private landowners would like to work with the government in ensuring that their land is protected and that the land can be used reasonably without endangering endangered species.”
