Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly
April 29, 2010
ADJOURNED DEBATES
SECOND READINGS
Bill No. 132
[The Assembly resumed the adjourned debate on the proposed motion by the Hon. Ms. Heppner that Bill No. 132 — The Wildlife Habitat Protection (Land Designation) Amendment Act, 2009 be now read a second time.]
The Speaker: — I recognize the member from The Battlefords.
Mr. Taylor: — Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 132. This is An Act to amend The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Mr. Speaker, this is an Act that was introduced recently by the Minister of the Environment. Mr. Speaker, it has been circulated throughout the province of Saskatchewan. It has been subject to a number of questions in the Chamber and, Mr. Speaker, it has also been subject of a number of conversations inside and outside the legislature, Mr. Speaker. And as a result, we in the opposition are finding that there are issues inherent in The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act that, Mr. Speaker, are either misunderstood by the public or if they are understood, Mr. Speaker, certainly the messages coming to government are not being heard by the Minister of the Environment and her officials.
I say this, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that we have a number of organizations that the minister has said have been thoroughly consulted with, organizations who are now saying that meaningful consultation did not occur. Mr. Speaker, as a result of that, yesterday in question period the member from Regina Walsh Acres, who is the Environment critic for the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, asked that the minister withdraw the Bill until such time as meaningful consultation can occur and, Mr. Speaker, agreements can be reached as to how to move forward.
I say there’s some confusion out there, Mr. Speaker, because the minister says this is about stewardship and about land protection and, Mr. Speaker, we have others who are indicating that there’s something more to this. Mr. Speaker, I want to express my own bias before I get into the heart of my remarks. Mr. Speaker, I accept the fact of stewardship. I do not believe this Act is about stewardship. This Act is about legacy and, Mr. Speaker, government is there to ensure and protect legacy, Mr. Speaker. And this Act seems to be interfering with legacy, Mr. Speaker.
So I don’t want to see this debate get lost in stewardship. We understand that there are individuals across this province, Mr. Speaker, who care deeply about habitat land and as a result, Mr. Speaker, they are going to be good stewards of the land. I’ll say more about this in a couple of minutes.
But, Mr. Speaker, there’s a role for government. There’s a role for government in ensuring that the collective good, the collective domain, Mr. Speaker, is protected. That’s what legacy is all about. That’s insurance, Mr. Speaker. That is certainty. And when we are talking about the things that are sharing the Earth with us, whether it’s plants or animals, Mr. Speaker, we have a role collectively, not just individually, to ensure that there are protections in place, Mr. Speaker, that everything we do, as they’ve said in the old tale, everything we do should be to ensure that we leave the Earth a better place than we found it, Mr. Speaker.
I support the argument that we have not been given the Earth to do as we want. It is our responsibility to ensure that our children inherit a better place than we inherited from our parents. So, Mr. Speaker, that is the essence of, I think, what the arguments are with regards to this legislation.
[08:30]
Members of the public who have been watching this Act know that there have been a number of speeches made. The member from Moose Jaw Wakamow started debate on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, some time ago and indicated that there were some concerns but we needed to consult further.
The members from Saskatoon Eastview and Saskatoon Fairview both spoke on this legislation, Mr. Speaker, and have indicated that indeed as a province, Mr. Speaker, we have to ensure that our government understands what it is that we, the people of Saskatchewan, want to see happen with regards to protecting wildlife habitat.
And, Mr. Speaker, the other day the member from Regina Coronation Park gave an impassioned speech that indicated some of the individuals who over their careers have contributed a great deal, Mr. Speaker, to the legislation, not just in Saskatchewan but in Canada and around the world, Mr. Speaker, that have provided protection for various species, floral and fauna.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. And while the Minister of the Environment would like us to believe it’s simply about stewardship, that it is possible to transfer protected lands to a sole party ownership, Mr. Speaker, away from the Crown because those who will own the land will manage it appropriately, Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to argue because I don’t want to debate what the Cattlemen’s Association or the Stock Growers Association that the minister quotes, Mr. Speaker, because I agree with them that in fact they can be and are good stewards of the land that they currently lease, Mr. Speaker. I don’t have an argument with those who wish to own the land that they use for their personal well-being, Mr. Speaker, their personal business.
The Crown or the province has in the past indicated they’ve been prepared to sell Crown land. In fact they started a program just a year and a half ago to sell Crown land in the province. In fact they were selling it at a discount, Mr. Speaker, a 10 per cent discount, they were so anxious to move some pasture land around the province into the hands of those who had leased that land for, in some cases, several generations.
But, Mr. Speaker, this is a different issue. These protected lands currently in legislation, these protected lands, Mr. Speaker, are identified in legislation. They are now Crown owned, Mr. Speaker, and what the government wants to do is be able to sell those Crown lands, but put a certification or a designation on those lands, Mr. Speaker, an easement — perhaps the legal word is better — an easement on those lands to provide what the government says is protection.
But what others are saying, Mr. Speaker — and I’ll provide some of that evidence in a few minutes — what others are saying, quite simply, Mr. Speaker, is that the Crown has an obligation to the public as a whole to ensure that for generations to come, not just the current generation or their children, but for generations to come that this land continues to have a legislative protection. And that within that protection, Mr. Speaker, there are ways in which certain obligations can be placed and, in fact, as we’ve known in the past, designated lands, when good arguments can be made for the removal of those lands from legislation, those good arguments are made, lands can be delisted after public debate, and, Mr. Speaker, additional lands can be identified and moved into the system.
We on this side of the House believe very strongly in no net loss. No net loss simply means, Mr. Speaker, if lands are delisted on one side, a certain number of acres, there’s another equal or greater — one would hope greater — number of acres that are added to the list, Mr. Speaker.
We’re not opposed to the recognition that at some point in time there may be some change, and with public consultation and public debate, Mr. Speaker, that in fact some land could be delisted. But it’s got to be done in a way in which the public fully understands what’s happening.
In many cases, Mr. Speaker, the public or the owner of a lease on a particular land doesn’t know how that land got designated in the first place. And in many cases, Mr. Speaker, you have families who have, over one or two generations have protected lands, and they have willed those lands to the province, Mr. Speaker, for habitat protection purposes. The Crown has accepted those, has listed those lands. And now, Mr. Speaker, it could be two generations later, somebody wants to see those lands delisted because they want to own rather than lease a particular piece of land.
I have no concerns, as I said, Mr. Speaker, about landownership in the province. And I have no issue to take with any person raising cattle in the province who wants to use designated lands, Mr. Speaker, but I do have a problem that the province wants to be able to make decisions that could in fact delist land or remove land from designation simply by the stroke of a pen behind closed doors in a cabinet office.
Mr. Speaker, let’s just talk about that for a second before I make some comments about the consultation process. Mr. Speaker, there’s two ways in which things happen in government. One is a legislative process, and the other is a regulatory process. And there are significant differences between these two things, Mr. Speaker. Legislation provides certainty and public accountability. Regulations allows things to be managed efficiently and quickly, Mr. Speaker, but there’s less accountability and less transparency, obviously, Mr. Speaker.
So when a government wants to be able to do things quickly, without the usual scrutiny, they will usually move something from a legislative agenda to a regulatory agenda. Legislation, for the public’s benefit, Mr. Speaker, is what we do in this Chamber when laws are passed. And those laws require, to go into effect, introduction of legislation, second reading, debate in principle, a sharing of information. It moves in to a committee where questions are asked, media is present — these are all open meetings — and then there’s a third reading in specifics, Mr. Speaker, after legislation might be amended. And then there’s also the process of Royal Assent and proclamation, Mr. Speaker, which also puts some public focus on government to see that things get done.
The regulatory process, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. Something gets brought up at a cabinet table, the minister gets the approval from cabinet, and they sign it off. It’s done, Mr. Speaker. A decision in cabinet, a regulation can be changed without anybody knowing it was on the table, without anybody knowing it was coming up, without anybody even knowing that it was done until it was done, Mr. Speaker. Very simple. Very efficient. So if you want to keep something from the public, you put it into regulations. If you want to make sure that the public knows what you’re doing, that there’s full transparency and accountability, and you want certainty on something as important as the designation of habitat lands, Mr. Speaker, you keep it in legislation.
And that seems to be part of the argument that we’re hearing from those who care about habitat protection, that in fact we built a legacy in this province — 3 million acres. I’m told that’s twice the size of the province of Prince Edward Island, Mr. Speaker. I don’t know that, but I’m told. And if we have that amount of land designated by legislation and by legislative authority, Mr. Speaker, we want to ensure that that protection is there with some certainty, Mr. Speaker. Because for Saskatchewan it’s not a large amount of land. I think 5 per cent of our total land area, Mr. Speaker, not a large amount of land. But in terms of the size compared to other parts of the country, a land base that’s twice the size of Prince Edward Island is something to be proud of. And in fact, Mr. Speaker, we have organizations, groups and individuals who are proud of that factand we have members of this Legislative Chamber who are very proud of the fact that we have designated these lands.
So the idea is legacy, Mr. Speaker, and certainty. And to do that we need transparency, accountability, we need public consultation, and we need public input.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what’s happening on the public input side of things? Well the government started on a process of changing environmental legislation a while ago. And, Mr. Speaker, they began believing that we need to have results-based environmental regulatory framework processes in place, Mr. Speaker. So they began a consultation process.
I made reference to this the other day, Mr. Speaker, this consultation process to sort of move to a larger regulatory framework for all the environmental Bills, not just The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act. It almost seems that this was kind of added at the end to satisfy the interests of moving some Crown land out of Crown land status and into private ownership, Mr. Speaker. But when this process to move to a results-based environmental regulatory framework, there was a consultation process begun, Mr. Speaker.
We go back prior to November of 2008 when this began, Mr. Speaker, and there were some concerns being raised even at that time. So we’re back more than a year and a half ago, Mr. Speaker.
I want to quote from the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation’s magazine, The Outdoor Edge. This is the November-December 2008 issue. And one of the editorials is written by the executive director, Mr. Darrell Crabbe. And Mr. Darrell Crabbe puts this caution on the table, Mr. Speaker, and this is as the consultation process was beginning. Mr. Crabbe writes:
. . . the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation was recently invited by the Ministry of Environment to participate in a comprehensive review of the Province’s environmental legislation with a stated goal of “most effectively protecting the environment and managing resources.”
There were just over 20 groups that were consulted. Only two of those groups were conservation or environmental organizations, with the overwhelming majority being made up of industry. The presentation was designed to promote a results based system that would streamline the regulatory review requirements to accommodate resource development and, supposedly, enhance the protection of the environment.
Mr. Crabbe goes on:
I don’t think anyone is opposed to the responsible development of our province’s resources and the economic benefits that will be enjoyed by the residents of Saskatchewan. But one only has to consider the importance that the environment has had in the last Provincial and recent Federal election to understand that environmental protection is paramount in the long term, sustainable development of our resource rich province.
November-December 2008, Mr. Speaker, as this consultation process was beginning, the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation sent up a flag that says, watch the protected side of this, Mr. Speaker, because the consultation process is dominated by sectors other than those who care about conservation and the environment.
So, Mr. Speaker, that process carries on. And further discussions are held on this regulatory, the change to a regulatory framework. Mr. Speaker, a number of things happen and The Wildlife Habitat Protection Act is drafted and is presented to this House. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, environmental organizations like the Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited were starting to realize that this consultation that they had engaged in, Mr. Speaker, was not exactly, the results of that consultation were not exactly what they were contributing to.
And Mr. Speaker, this is noted by a number of media stories that have appeared, comments that have appeared in just the last couple of days, Mr. Speaker. And this provides some evidence that it appears that the minister does not fully understand why there are concerns being raised about the Bill that’s in front of us.
[08:45]
Just the other day, Mr. Crabbe, who I just quoted from a year and a half ago, just the other day, Mr. Speaker, on April the 28th, quoted by CBC [Canadian Broadcasting Corporation] News, Mr. Crabbe says, the properties in question, the wildlife lands “. . . are owned by the people of Saskatchewan, and I just don’t think most people would want to see them sold off. He goes on to say, quoted by CBC News, “It’s a very sad day when the dollar plays a bigger role than our future generations.”
In response to that, the member from Regina Walsh Acres says, in response to that, “Why are the years of hard work by people concerned about wildlife being put in jeopardy by this government’s financial mismanagement?”
Mr. Speaker, that argument comes down to the fact that this government appears to be more interested in selling some properties and receiving some other benefit, Mr. Speaker, because they need money. And while the government will argue this isn’t about money, the fact of the matter is this government has spent the financial legacy of the province, and now they’re interfering with the conservation and environmental legacy of this province to compensate for it.
Also, Mr. Speaker, in the media just the other day also, the Leader-Post, the Regina Leader-Post, April 28th, a number of people including Brent Kennedy from Ducks Unlimited, who was introduced in this Chamber a little earlier . . . Mr. Kennedy is the manager of provincial operations for Ducks Unlimited. He says the government should do more consultation before trying to pass the amendments this spring. His preference, Mr. Speaker, would be that all of the land remain protected under the Act, Mr. Speaker. He also is quoted, he also is quoted as saying, “We’re not convinced that they have the means [meaning the Saskatchewan Party government, that they have the means] to be able to accurately define which lands have greater or which lands have lesser ecological value.” Now, Mr. Speaker, the fact that Mr. Kennedy would say this to the Leader-Post indicates that the consultation process has in fact not been meaningful, meaningful in the sense that if full consultation had occurred, there would be an understanding about the science behind this definition of lands, this change in the way in which lands are evaluated. So obviously, Mr. Speaker, there has not been a good enough consultation process put in front of those who are most concerned, Mr. Speaker, about the future of the lands in question.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think this just goes to the heart of this question about what should happen to this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, the member from Regina Walsh Acres yesterday in question period asked that the legislation be withdrawn until such time as clarity can be reached on this issue.
Last night in one of the committees, the Economy Committee of the legislature, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment was there answering questions on other legislation relating to changes in the regulatory format. There was some concerns raised about some of the language in the legislation. And, Mr. Speaker, members of the government became quite concerned that members of the opposition were asking questions to find clarity in the legal language there. And at one point, Mr. Speaker, the member from Thunder Creek, backed up by the member from Cannington, indicated that if the public wasn’t happy with the language or the Bill or the directions that this new process was taking, there’s an election coming and the public can simply express their unhappiness during the election.
Well, Mr. Speaker, it just goes to show that the members opposite think more highly of themselves than they do about the consequences of the legislation that they’re bringing forward. They are simply indicating, we’re government; we have the majority. We’ll do whatever we want, and if you don’t like it, you vote against us in the next election.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this is an important piece of legislation. It’s about legacy. It’s about the long-term future not this generation or the next generation of stewards but, Mr. Speaker, the stewards who come later — the grandchildren, the great-grandchildren, and the great-great-grandchildren, or the corporations that they own who might want to assume the leases on these pieces of land. This is long-term legacy legislation that we’re talking about, Mr. Speaker.
And there are concerns being raised by organizations representing a very large number of people across the province of Saskatchewan, Mr. Speaker. And it’s not good enough to say we’re going to pass this legislation. We’re going to make this major change. And if you don’t like this, you just get rid of us in the next election.
Mr. Speaker, we think there are ways in which this government, through meaningful consultation with the organizations that have expressed some concern, Mr. Speaker, there are ways in which, with meaningful consultation, that we can work our way through this. Now it’s my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that organizations like Ducks Unlimited are in the city of Regina today, representatives of Saskatchewan Wildlife Federation, representatives of the Nature Conservancy are in Regina today, Mr. Speaker, and there’s an opportunity for the Minister of the Environment and officials from the ministry to sit down and review the concerns that exist on this legislation, Mr. Speaker. There are ways in which we can ensure that the issues related previously by the Cattlemen’s Association and the Stock Growers Association can be thrown into this mix, Mr. Speaker, and try to understand what it is that the people of Saskatchewan want this government to be doing. This is not a simple matter. It can’t be done quickly and easily, Mr. Speaker. When you’re dealing with legacy issues, it’s not a simple matter.
So, Mr. Speaker, I simply reiterate the fact that there was a call put out that this Bill be withdrawn until meaningful consultation can occur. Mr. Speaker, I want to say I support that call. I don’t see that there is a critical need to move this Bill through as quickly as the minister would like it simply because it’s not a matter of just asking questions. It’s a matter of fully understanding the long-term implications that are put in front of us.
Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert in this field. I do care very much about wildlife habitat protection. I have a huge respect for those who have gone before me who have created the system of protecting wildlife habitat in Saskatchewan, those who were stewards of the land in the past, who have dedicated this land for future generations for long-term sustainability in the province of Saskatchewan.
And I respect that government has a responsibility to ensure there is certainty in this long-term protection, Mr. Speaker. Legacy is not something to be taken lightly. And it’s not something that can be brushed off, saying somebody else will take care of it; we don’t need to, Mr. Speaker.
So I ask very simply, I ask very simply in my argument today that the Minister of the Environment withdraw this Bill, conduct meaningful consultations, come back to this House with a demonstration that indeed consultation occurred and that those who were consulted feel at the end of the day that they were listened to and that the government understands the argument. That’s all that we ask in a very simple way, Mr. Speaker — to ensure that with a stroke of a pen this government is not just giving away a legacy that has been hard fought for, created under many difficult circumstances, and that the majority of those who care about conservation and the environment are saying to us, think about it; make sure those protections exist, and don’t try to mislead us in any way by deflecting what the argument is.
This argument is not about stewardship. It’s about legacy. Let’s keep it there, and let’s do the right thing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
