[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, November 6, 1996
.1534 
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): My name is Jean Payne. I will be sitting in for Mr. Caccia as the chair this afternoon.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the order of the day is consideration of the topic of endangered species. We are in day two of that discussion. We have with us today Mr. Steven Curtis, who is the director general of the Canadian Wildlife Service. Mr. Curtis will be giving us a short brief. If at any point you feel like asking questions of Mr. Curtis, please feel free to do so.
.1535
I ask you, Mr. Curtis, to introduce the other members with you today. We will begin with that.
Mr. Steven Curtis (Acting Director General, Biodiversity Protection Branch, Canadian Wildlife Service, Department of Environment Canada): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm actually the acting director general rather than the director general.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Sorry. I just gave you a promotion.
Mr. Curtis: Dave Brackett, our director general, was here yesterday. He's now in Buenos Aires, attending the third conference of the parties for the Convention on Biological Diversity. He's there right now, attending to that function.
We're very pleased to be here this afternoon. I have with me Linda Maltby; Theresa Aniskowizs, one of our scientific advisers; Bernard Conilh de Beyssac; Charles Dauphiné, our expert on international affairs; and Erich Haber. Erich is not with Environment Canada but rather is a private citizen, if you will. He's the current chair of the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, COSEWIC.
With your indulgence, what I had hoped to do was to have a few introductory remarks and then turn it over to my staff for a bit of background on COSEWIC and how it works. Then we would open up the floor for any questions you might have. If at any point during my presentation there are questions or clarifications you desire, please interrupt.
I wanted to say just a very few brief words about the thick briefing package you were provided earlier. We started to go over some of this material. At the beginning of it there's a list of fourteen items in an index to the package. I don't intend to walk through all of this, but the main message here is that these represent the key documents we have used for consulting with Canadians and for discussing various possible ways to handle this initiative over the course of essentially the last two years. The first item, Endangered Species Legislation in Canada: A Discussion Paper, was released by Minister Copps on November 17, 1994 to kick off the public debate and public discussion about what should be included in a piece of federal legislation intended to protect species at risk in Canada.
Contrary to the words in yesterday's Globe and Mail article that suggested the whole process had been shrouded in secrecy, we have in fact been very open, we believe, and we've consulted broadly on this initiative over the course of the last two years. Obviously some of the more recent activities have been covered by cabinet confidence and so on, and perhaps that was the part they were referring to.
We started out by consulting - we've been consulting during this entire period - particularly with our provincial and territorial colleagues. As you're probably aware from reading the editorials and your increasing knowledge of the background here, provinces have an awful lot to do with the management of species in Canada, including those which are considered to be at risk, and also with the management of the lands, the habitat, on which they depend, on which they live. So it was clear from the outset that we needed to have not only a good understanding but a good partnership with provinces.
In May 1995 we held public consultation sessions across Canada in about fourteen different locations, including at least one in every province, and in some cases two locations, usually the principal city or the national capital, to engage the local interest groups in consultation. In most cases we undertook those consultation sessions in partnership with our provincial counterpart, so the host province and ourselves put on these consultation sessions to discuss how endangered species should be protected in Canada, how specifically federal legislation should be crafted, and how it would deal with the federal part of the puzzle, if I can put it that way.
.1540
Then, in the summer of 1995 we went to cabinet for approval on the policy background, and on August 17 released a legislative proposal for discussion. It wasn't a draft bill; it was a legislative proposal, specifically for discussion purposes, and it did generate a lot of comment, including a fair amount of criticism that we hadn't gone far enough to protect species.
We also continued to hold meetings, discussion sessions, with our task force that was created, the task force on endangered species conservation. They finally submitted their report to us in May of this last year, and it was a principal piece in our formulation of the draft bill.
We've consulted and had a number of discussions with aboriginal groups. Right at the outset we wanted to make sure the northern claimant groups were aware of this initiative and what it might contain, what its impacts on them might be, and in fact, how we could obtain their cooperation.
With that background - there are some other materials in this book as well that deal specifically with examples of status reports, recovery plans, and so on, and I'll get to those in a second - I want to make a couple of observations about what we learned and heard from Canadians as a consequence of the consultations we've held to date.
First of all, it was very clear that there's a very high level of public interest in seeing that the right thing is done to ensure the protection of species at risk in Canada. It was clear that the federal government is being looked to, to provide the leadership and the national coordination necessary to ensure that species are protected from coast to coast to coast. A recent poll of Canadians showed that over 92% of those polled supported federal legislation to protect endangered species.
The second point is that there was a very strong desire to have a listing process that operates independent of government and assesses the status of species in Canada based on the best available scientific knowledge and the best community or traditional environmental knowledge.
Third, we learned that for all species listed as threatened or endangered, there must be immediate prohibitions on the killing or harming or commercial exploitation of those listed species. This is an element we didn't actually have in our August 17 document but has subsequently been added to the bill. Exceptions to such prohibitions must be of a limited nature and must be subject to specific conditions.
Also, we heard a fair amount about recovery planning for listed species. We learned that it must be mandatory unless there are clear biological or technical reasons why recovery isn't feasible. It must be timely. Recovery plans should be prepared in one year for species listed as endangered, and two years for species listed as threatened or extirpated.
Recovery planning must be done in an open and inclusive manner, considering first the interests of species, but involving parties directly affected by the plan and/or partners who could contribute significantly to the plan's development or to its implementation. Then, once agreed to, these plans need to be implemented as a matter of priority. They shouldn't be left on the shelf but should be given some status.
Next we learned that all aspects of the administration and implementation of the act need to be carried out in an open and publicly accountable manner, and we have attempted to do that.
We heard a lot about habitat protection. For most species the greatest threat to their continuing survival is loss or degradation of their habitat. Any act must find effective ways to address habitat protection. But on this issue there was a considerable difference of opinion on how best to achieve the habitat protection objectives. While many expressed their preference for strong mandatory habitat protection measures wherever a species occurs, others emphasized the need to respect jurisdiction and the need to take into account the rights of landowners.
.1545
We've also heard that we need a made-in-Canada solution to best address the needs of our endangered species. We should learn from and take what we can from the legislation of other countries, but rather than copy those bits of legislation we should modify and adapt appropriately to the Canadian reality.
To be truly successful, the act must also set the proper tone. It must serve as a catalyst for mobilizing the best efforts of all Canadians to protect species at risk and to prevent species from becoming at risk in the first instance.
To advance such an objective, an act must foster cooperation at all levels: cooperation among departments and agencies within the federal government; a maximum level of cooperation among levels of government, especially federal and provincial; cooperation with landowners, drawing on their positive conservation efforts and voluntary actions rather than relying fully on regulations to achieve all the objectives of the act; cooperation with aboriginal people; cooperation with international governments; cooperation with industry, particularly those industries involved in resource extraction; and ultimately, cooperation with all Canadians.
A cooperative approach does not mean the protection of endangered species is optional but rather underscores the reality that the best and most enduring result can only be achieved or obtained when everyone is working together.
We had some interesting results in our discussions with groups. In our early discussions with farmers and ranchers, for example, we heard over and over again concerns about the pitfalls of a heavy-handed regulatory approach and of the positive benefits of working cooperatively with agricultural interest groups.
Prairie farmers and ranchers pointed in particular to the successful partnership approach that was adopted in the North American waterfowl management plan. That was a highly effective partnership of the federal government; the provincial government; U.S. governments, state and federal; and agricultural interests. It applied in Canada, U.S. and Mexico and enjoys very heavy participation by non-government organizations as well, with pooled resources for the conservation of waterfowl and their wetland habitats. None of its objectives have been regulated or otherwise set out in statute, but nonetheless the results are quite remarkable.
We also learned that, to be effective, the federal endangered species act must work in tandem with a full national effort to manage all species and all landscapes on a sustainable basis. That will prevent species from becoming at risk in the first instance, and certainly prevention is the key to this.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I don't want to cut into your presentation or anything, but I wonder... I don't know how long your presentation is, but because of the time some members have here this afternoon, if it is in fact much longer we may very well be better off to go to questions and answers.
Mr. Curtis: I have only one more point, and that's the importance of education and public awareness.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Okay, thank you.
Mr. Curtis: It's essential to the protection of species at risk.
I think it's true that few Canadians deliberately kill endangered species or destroy their habitats if they know in advance that there is a risk that their actions might produce such consequences. Clearly, a key is to inform Canadians of the problems that species face, where they live, and what their requirements are.
Those are my opening remarks. Thank you.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much.
We can go to questions from the members, if they so wish. Madame Guay.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): I have a rather general question to ask. I would like to know whether, in your opinion, this bill reflects the expectations of the community, the provinces, the organizations and all the others you have been consulting with over the course of the last two years. You said that you have been on a cross-Canada tour of 14 cities. I would like to know what your opinion is.
.1550
[English]
Mr. Curtis: Certainly in these matters different groups have different expectations of what should be in a piece of legislation. It's fair to say a number of environmental groups would like to have seen stronger measures taken by the federal government to ensure the protection of species at risk.
We believe the bill respects our understanding with provincial governments in terms of working through the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada, which was recently negotiated in Charlottetown, which was agreed to in principle by ministers at that session, and which a number of ministers have signed since that October 2 meeting. The reactions of other groups you'll be hearing during the committee's deliberations over the next weeks.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: But you did hear what different groups and organizations had to say when you met with them. What came out of those meetings? Were you successful in reaching some consensus? If not, did they suggest any changes?
[English]
Mr. Curtis: Very definitely numerous changes were made to the wording of the bill throughout the two-year process. I think I indicated that the August 17 document presented a particular approach - a fairly conservative one, it's fair to say. We have had numerous suggestions on ways to strengthen and change that. Most of those suggestions have been taken into account. We also relied very heavily on the recommendations of the task force Minister Copps set up and then Minister Marchi supported when he became environment minister. We believe we've responded to most of the substantial recommendations of that task force. It's hard to estimate exactly how much of them, but at least 80% could be found in this bill.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: Some species deemed threatened in the federal legislation do not occur on federal lands. What kind of penalties and remedies does the bill provide for? In other words, have you made arrangements in order to be able to apply your fines and penalties on provincial lands and even in the United States, if ever this were to happen?
[English]
Mr. Curtis: If the species is one of those species that are clearly protected by the provisions of the bill, if it's a federal species or if it's any species that's listed and occurs on federal lands, the fines and penalties are potentially there for a magistrate in the event there's a violation of the act. If it's a provincial species occurring on provincial lands, the national accord arrangement dictates that it would be the province, under its act, which would determine the fines and determine what the prohibitions were. That's in the current formulation we have.
As for your question about the United States, could you clarify that? I'm not sure I follow that one exactly.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: We share a border with the United States. Do you have an agreement with the US on species that do not necessarily live on our lands? What means will you use to enforce the legislation? Will you apply sanctions?
[English]
Mr. Curtis: Any penalties that would apply would apply within Canada when individuals of that species were found in Canada and an offence under the proposed act was committed in Canada.
.1555
It's our intention to work closely with the United States, for example, because they're one of the countries with whom we share species on joint recovery efforts and so on. They have their own legislation that deals with the protection of a species within the boundaries of their own countries. But when a species is protected in the U.S., as in Canada, we have the facility in this act to provide protection to it here as well. Even if it's occurring on provincial land, there is a provision for dealing with international, cross-border species. This provision enables the regulation protecting those species in the event that a particular province doesn't act or doesn't put in place the necessary protective measures.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: You know that Bill C-62 amending the Fisheries Act is presently under consideration in the House and that there are many concerns about this piece of legislation that we think is overlapping the endangered species bill.
If the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans decided to sign a five-year agreement on some fish species and if COSEWIC decided two years later that this exact same species is endangered or threatened, who would be ultimately responsible for implementing the legislation?
It is worrisome, because we have laws that are overlapping. Bill C-62 is also concerned with fish protection.
[English]
Mr. Curtis: Under this act, for species covered by or falling under the responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, it's that minister's responsibility to administer the key components insofar as they apply to those species. So in your scenario, where there was a management plan for a commercially harvested species, and the species came into difficulty - the numbers were significantly down - the expectation or the assumption is that long before it had reached the stage where it might be considered by COSEWIC as being threatened, endangered or even vulnerable, the management effort for that species would kick in and reduce the take of the species, perhaps even eliminating the commercial take of the species.
Because it's the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is administering both the agreements to which you refer and the provisions insofar as they pertain to fisheries species under this act, there isn't any conflict as we see it. He or she can act appropriately. I don't believe it's a question of which act takes precedence. I think they both will act in tandem. We will be relying heavily on the powers and authorities under the Fisheries Act to assist in the implementation of this piece of legislation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: I'm not convinced at all. For years, there have been conflicts between Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada. I think that, somehow, conflicts will happen, particularly with the Minister giving herself such an absolute decision-making authority.
I'm convinced that there are bound to be overlapping or duplication or conflicts because of this bill. This is just a comment, not a question.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Madame Guay.
Mr. Forseth, please.
Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): Thank you very much.
The bill certainly has provisions for emergency orders to protect an endangered or threatened species in a habitat critical to its survival. I think some of these provisions, specifically clause 34, say the responsible minister - whether it's Environment, Heritage, Fisheries and Oceans and so on - may make an emergency order if the minister decides immediate action is required to protect a species or if COSEWIC designates or reclassifies a species on an emergency basis. The order may include provisions relating to or prohibiting activities that directly affect the species, and where COSEWIC identifies a loss of habitat as an imminent threat to survival of the species, the emerging order will also include habitat protection.
.1600
It talks about emergency orders, which may only be applied to federally managed species - again, this list of international cross-border species: species covered under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, species covered under the Fisheries Act, and species on federal lands.
I'm trying to think of the what-if scenario to clarify the operation of the act. Interestingly, in terms of international cross-border species, I live in the lower mainland of British Columbia. We have an open border with the U.S., where we have farmers on both sides. There is private land right up to the international border in the Fraser Valley. Could we have, for instance, a scenario of what would become an international cross-border species because it wanders back and forth across the border from farmland to farmland, but it's on private land? Where the act kicks in on some kind of a bird or a mammal that wanders back and forth across the border and it maybe hasn't been classically known or categorized under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, provisions then would be intervening on private property. Can you imagine a situation like that?
Mr. Curtis: Yes, potentially I can. The intent of clause 33, the one you're referring to that addresses cross-border species, is to have in place a mechanism - a safety net, if you will - to enable protective action in the event that the responsible province does not put in place the necessary protective measures. Under the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk in Canada, which the provinces have agreed to in principle, there is a provision that all jurisdictions will, upon the listing of a species, provide protection either through legislation or programs. For that sort of protection, we're thinking it would be through legislation. This is an enabling provision that allows the minister to put in place regulations under this act to prohibit the taking of a particular species on all lands. So, yes, there is potential for its application on private lands.
Mr. Forseth: I see somewhat of a distinction between regulating and prohibiting activities as distinct from the loss of habitat. Activities are things such as chopping down a tree that a particular nest is in. Maybe, through extension of habitat or whatever...we have a subdivision. Do you envision that an urban subdivision is going to be stopped because developers can't chop down that tree since there happens to be a nest in it? This is all private land.
Mr. Curtis: I'm wanting to say no, but I think we're going to have to look specifically at that.
Lynda, do you have...?
Ms Lynda Maltby (Chief, Endangered Species Conservation Division, Canadian Wildlife Service): If it's a migratory bird or it's a seasonal thing, because it is zeroed on that particular habitat, that particular habitat - being a nest, burrow or den - is very narrow. If they're not habitually there, which in some cases they won't be...
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): What if they are habitually there?
Ms Maltby: Then the act will apply.
Mr. Forseth: I'll give you another scenario - let's say range land. As an extension of fisheries or whatever, that prohibits cattle from crossing streams.
Mr. Curtis: So the question would we be whether or not we would be able to prohibit the cattle from crossing those streams.
Mr. Forseth: Yes. Part of the remediation design may say that if you're going to use this land for grazing purposes, you're going to have to build fences that keep the cattle 200 yards away from the streams. That then essentially makes the whole use of a certain bit of land uneconomic.
.1605
Mr. Curtis: There are already provisions in the existing Fisheries Act for the protection of fish habitat. Theoretically those provisions could be used in the manner you're describing right now. But were it an endangered species, the expectation is that a recovery plan would be developed and the kinds of measures that were considered necessary would be worked out.
I don't know whether it would get as specific as dealing with whether a cow could cross a particular watershed or a creek on a particular ranch. It could, theoretically. But clearly ranchers and other landowners in the area where the species occurs would be part of the process of developing such a plan and would have a say in the production of such a plan and its provisions.
Mr. Forseth: I know the bill talks about participation, but there's no kind of appeal. Okay, we've consulted you. Certain stakeholders give their two bits; they've been consulted. The act, as it will be then, will have been fulfilled, and then I assume ministry people are going to administer it - just go forward and do what they want anyway. There are no provisions for some kind of appeal, reining in bureaucrats run amok.
Ms Maltby: You're right, there is no provision for appeal. There is the open public review process once a recovery plan has been developed, though. That goes for sixty days after the recovery plan is developed. Then it's turned over to the responsible minister to implement in the way the responsible minister sees fit.
Mr. Curtis: The whole process is intended to be, as Lynda has said, very open. Many documents will be published and included in the public registry that's provided for. That invites anyone to come, either about officials running amok, to use your words, or about their not running amok, if environmentalists are looking for more action. So I think the ability to comment on and provide input to and to scrutinize what's being put in place is there.
Mr. Forseth: I'll ask one follow-up, then I'll defer until later.
Could you conceive of any way this bill or the accord the provinces have committed themselves to could be used for a perverse economic competitive advantage? In other words, one economic enterprise uses this bill to screw up the economic enterprise of a competitor; a perverse use of the bill under the guise of protecting endangered species, but really it's a hidden agenda.
Mr. Curtis: I would certainly hope in its construction and drafting there hasn't been a loophole or a flaw that would enable what you're describing to occur. But I haven't looked at every clause with that particular point of view in mind.
Mr. Forseth: Perhaps that should be addressed, and also to deal with particular groups who have almost a religious philosophical viewpoint they are going to pursue, and who will use this legislation to pursue, their own political or almost religious agenda against any kind of development or occupation of land or whatever...also, that the general goodwill and intent of the bill is not open to that kind of abuse by community pressure groups which have an unusual philosophy.
Mr. Curtis: With the kinds of safeguards we've put in place, we're relying very heavily on a scientific, apolitical process for determining the status of species.
.1610
So while there are provisions for private citizens to make application to COSEWIC for the listing of species, they have to meet certain criteria. We have put in safeguards against the frivolous listing of species. Once a species is on the list, the listing process as it's currently devised requires that it would be put in regulations by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the minister. There is a regulatory process the list has to go through.
On the recovery side, recovery is to be accomplished in an open and politically and publicly accountable manner. I would think there ought to be the sorts of safeguards in that to prevent the kind of misuse you're describing. It's possible something has evaded us.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle (Huron - Bruce): In your earlier comments you had alluded to an article in the paper this morning - I believe it was in The Globe and Mail - that someone had taken exception to the fact that perhaps the legislation may not go far enough. Some of us have concerns that it may go too far.
Given the fact that the federal government is entrusted with this legislation and we've entrusted to the provinces certain jurisdictional powers, as you see this bill unfold and as we come to make this bill an act of Parliament, do you feel we've gone far enough, or is there merit in the argument put forth, or the fear that has been expressed by these people, that we haven't gone far enough, that we're putting a good face on it but perhaps there isn't much substance?
Mr. Curtis: To be fair, that's a question of judgment. What my own personal views might be is...I wouldn't say irrelevant, but I think ultimately these are political decisions.
From the outset we and Minister Copps, and subsequently Minister Marchi, have striven for the appropriate balance all the way through in responding to a wide cross-section of Canadians on what should be in this piece of legislation, and at the end of the day it's the balance that will be needed. But where that balance point is is not for me to decide or to comment on.
Mr. Steckle: I guess that wasn't a fair question.
Let me go to the area of our prairie farmers, where indeed many of the species exist. You've met with these people over the last two years. What would be a fair assessment of their perception of this bill? How did they feel about that?
I'm sure some of the arguments that are being posed by my colleague Mr. Forseth and others - I'm sure as the debate goes on and we hear witnesses this will come up time and again...and yesterday, about property rights, I raised the argument that could be made about perhaps a loss of those where certain species exist.
I know it's difficult, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think we need to have a clear understanding so the risk of argument, the risk of questioning the bill itself, doesn't become the focus point as we proceed through this bill, and so we have a clear understanding of where people's rights are versus the rights of the species we're trying to protect. I think that's the fundamental question we have to address as we go through this process. I think all of us would agree the reason we're doing this is to protect the species, but at what expense and at whose expense? This a big question, which will come up time and again, and you won't be the only ones who have to answer that question.
.1615
Mr. Curtis: I'll speak to that just briefly.
At the outset, when we met with individual ranchers and members of various associations - the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, for example - we heard that they had the kinds of concerns you're alluding to, concerns about the government using a heavy hand and intruding on the way they manage their land and hence their livelihoods, and that a regulatory big-stick approach was not the way to go. They cautioned us against adopting a U.S.-style piece of legislation. But the more we consulted and interacted, the more they became, I think it's fair to say - and you'll have to extract the answers from them when you talk to them directly - concerned about the need to do something for species.
It's quite clear that these groups are very much interested in becoming part of the solution rather than part of the problem, and wanting to work toward preventing problems in the first instance. Many of them are already enrolled in such programs as Operation Burrowing Owl, where they look after burrowing owls on their ranch lands while still continuing to ranch. Those are the kinds of approaches that we're very interested in fostering.
I think it would be their assumption that little in this act would apply to their lands. We've talked about potential application to private lands. The groups have been concerned but I think very much supportive of the need for action for endangered species. Their concern has been about just what form that action would take and whether there would be more encouragement and less of a stick, or the other way around. Again, it's that question of balance.
Mr. Steckle: Are there others? Yes, Linda.
Ms Maltby: Just to refer to what Steven has said, I think in hearing the concerns of the private landowners in the prairies, and actually all over Canada - in Ontario, farmers have raised similar concerns - I think what's been very clear is that at the outset, at the beginning of this whole process, they didn't want to have anything to do with legislation at all. But as we went through the process it became an evolutionary kind of situation whereby when more people became educated and started to realize the benefits of doing something for the protection of endangered species, there was a whole turn in view. Yes, they sort of realized legislation is fine, but they still wanted to look for some kind of voluntary and cooperative effort with the private landowners who happened to have endangered species or threatened species on their lands. The key to that is knowing whether they're there, so the whole education process is extremely important.
Mr. Steckle: I'm glad you alluded to the educational aspect of it, because I think that's important. I believe that's very important. As most of us know, bird watching has become the fastest growing sport in North America. That says one thing to me: that more and more people are becoming cognizant of what really is out there, what species are there.
To take the extreme, to give the example of a situation that occurred in my...it didn't happen with a single species, but with a woodlot. A certain group of people in my community believed that a woodlot should be spared because they believed it was virgin forest. Now, you find me a virgin forest in southwestern Ontario and I can tell you it's much more easy to find some other things than it is to find a virgin forest.
However, I can tell you that this forest was spared because enough people believed it should be spared. They went to great lengths to call public meetings and even went so far as to have a county region put a stop to it. There was estimated to be $120,000 worth of logs in that particular woodlot, and because there was a stoppage to this harvesting of these trees...
Subsequent to that, a storm went through the area and completely destroyed not only that area but the town in which my office is located. Now there's virtually no value to this woodlot. It's a virgin forest in their estimation, of course, but it's nothing but a mess.
.1620
So we see what kind of extremes we can go to. These are the kind of extremes I'm afraid may occur. I think my colleague alluded to the fact that some people religiously go about justifying what they believe is in the interests of a species or of a cause. Sometimes we need to find a middle ground. It is my hope we can do this. It is with education and doing what we're doing, perhaps moving slowly but moving forward, that we can meet the interests of both parties.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you, Mr. Steckle.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm sorry, I was called out of the room. I apologize if this question has been asked.
I'm thinking about the provincial legislation that currently exists out there. I'm wondering how the provincial listing mechanism might work with the legislation we're looking at right now and with the listing process identified in the legislation.
Mr. Curtis: I'll make an opening comment and then perhaps turn it over to one of the other people here to provide more particulars on how various provincial pieces of legislation work.
The intent under the accord and the intent throughout our two years of discussion with provinces is that the status assessment process, COSEWIC, will be used not just by the federal government but also by provinces as the basis for their listings under their legislation. So if a species occurred in Ontario and Manitoba, for example, and COSEWIC has assessed it as being endangered, the federal government would list it in its legislation as endangered. Each of the two provinces, Manitoba and Ontario, would be expected to do the same under their legislation.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Does the provincial listing occur through COSEWIC as well?
Mr. Curtis: COSEWIC forms the basis of the data. The recommendation from COSEWIC would be considered by the province. It is processed in the same way we're proposing to do the processing at the federal level for a federal listing of the species.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: With the province, is it automatic?
Mr. Curtis: This is part of the core. There is nothing we can put in this federal bill that requires provinces to do this. It's part of the political agreement to -
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So is it part of the accord?
Mr. Curtis: Yes.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What did they have prior to the accord? How did they do the listing?
Mr. Curtis: It varies from province to province. Quebec and Manitoba have their own listing committees or committees of experts that make assessments and then provide recommendations to the minister.
They have in the past looked at and used COSEWIC's current and existing designations as a source of information for those listings. Not all provinces follow COSEWIC's existing listings in the same way, but the desire is that they will all consider COSEWIC very seriously. The intent is that COSEWIC is one of those national coordination mechanisms provided for in the federal act but available to all provinces to assist their deliberations.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay.
Mr. Curtis: I don't know if anyone wants to add a bit of detail about provinces.
Ms Maltby: In Ontario they have a committee called COSSARO, essentially a combination of provincial scientific experts and other academic experts who sit together to make an assessment of the status of wildlife at risk in Ontario. COSSARO even now has taken the designations from COSEWIC, the national committee. It takes those and considers it through their own listing process.
This is sort of how it is working, at least informally, at the moment.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I wanted to go back to COSEWIC itself and the structure of COSEWIC. It is my understanding that currently COSEWIC has about 28 members who represent different aspects of the scientific community. They will still be part of COSEWIC, but there is also going to be a nine-member board. Is this correct?
.1625
Ms Maltby: It is going to be a board of somewhere from five to nine members.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: So the 28-member scientific body will conduct its research and work in the way it already has been working. Then this data will be presented to the board and the board will make a final decision on the listing. Is this correct?
Ms Maltby: Yes. This is what is intended.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: What is the make-up of this board?
Ms Maltby: The board will be appointed by the Minister of the Environment on recommendations from the ministerial council on endangered species. It could draw upon a variety of scientific experts across the country, depending on what expertise is needed. It could also draw upon people with traditional ecological knowledge and expertise, depending on what species are going to be considered.
The idea is that there would be a list of nominations that would be at least produced by the council and recommended to the Minister of the Environment. The Minister of the Environment will make a decision, or appoint the committee members.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: How would the board make its decision when it comes to listing? Would it be by vote or consensus?
Ms Maltby: Those kinds of procedures haven't been developed. As for how the board will operate, this is something that will have to be developed over the next year or so.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I'm wondering what will happen with the scientific data being developed by the 28 individual scientists. The way I visualize this is you have the 28 who are developing data on different issues and then you have the board. I'm wondering where their data is going to go. How does it interact with the board?
Ms Maltby: Maybe I could clarify a little. A status report for a particular species is the basis for any kind of determination or designation by COSEWIC. So the status report will essentially be commissioned by COSEWIC, if required.
I was going to speak a little bit about the current process and how it works. What would happen is that the status report would go through the technical committee. This 28-member committee is really a technical committee with a variety of expertise. Members will come from across the country and have expertise in various taxonomic groups as well as traditional ecological knowledge.
This technical committee will make a recommendation as to the designation of a species to the board. The board will decide whether or not this recommendation should stay.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Is there currently a board?
Ms Maltby: No. This is totally new. This is what is being proposed.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Okay. So before, the 28-member technical committee would develop their status reports and then the species would be designated or listed, if there was a need for this.
The Vice-Chair (Ms Payne): In fact, I think we have with us the chair of the committee, who may want to interject with some information for us.
Mr. Haber.
Mr. Erich Haber (Chair, Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC): One thing that hasn't been mentioned is that right now we have the representatives from all of the wildlife ministries sitting at the annual meeting. It is these people, together with the chairs of the six scientific subcommittees, who will reach consensus on a particular status. They will decide whether something is no longer or presently endangered, threatened, or not at risk, or there isn't enough information. These various designations are made through consensus. Usually it's through consensus. If it gets close to it but there's a problem, we have a two-thirds vote that will reign.
.1630
What is actually happening is that the provinces, as well as federal agencies and national environmental organizations, at present are all involved in arriving at consensus on a particular status for a species. The new process will have a limited number of persons involved, a maximum of nine people who will actually look at it and give the final approval, but it is still this technical committee that will be producing the reports and making recommendations based on the information provided in the reports.
Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Right now you have your 28-member technical committee and there is a smaller group that actually makes decisions.
Mr. Haber: Let me just clarify that. I'm not sure from reading the bill where the 28 comes from; but that's an aside. At present we have 6 subcommittees. A chair or co-chair is involved in steering the subcommittees. Then we have varying numbers of professional people - wildlife people, museum scientists, university scientists - with specialties dealing with the particular group involved, whether it's with birds, mammals, fish, plants, whatever it might be. So we have a range of people from across the country represented on each of the subcommittees, but this number varies depending on the number of people available.
This is part of the problem at present. We do have a shortage of the specialists to work with us. That is something we do have to address by providing support for these people, who are at present providing the scientific basis for the work COSEWIC is doing.
COSEWIC is looked on as being such an objective and well-run committee because we look at scientific information and base a judgment on what we find in these reports. It goes through quite a lengthy process of the authors of the reports providing recommendations and the subcommittees providing their own recommendations, and they are not always the same as that of the author. In fact, the final designations that are made by COSEWIC at present need not be and sometimes are not the same as those arrived at by even the specialist subcommittees.
At our annual meeting we have a considerable amount of discussion dealing with the various issues. These discussions are what is really important. As an education process, we arrive at a consensus usually because through the discussions of the specialist subcommittee chairs that are present and the various wildlife people who are there we impart our own specialist information, which perhaps does not come through in reports. So we have these discussions and sometimes educate in part various other members who are there at the annual meeting. It is this kind of give and take and understanding of what the issues are...because even the subcommittee sometimes does not fully appreciate the management problems and other related issues that come into play.
But the basis of designation is really that we look at the facts, the degree of threat, the changes in populations. These kinds of things we look at in an objective way.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): Thank you, Madam Chair.
I was interested in what a couple of my colleagues said about religious fervour. I was wondering what they were talking about, partly because I represent a people who hunt as a way of life and to date there has not been any example of those people causing a species to become extinct. They still hunt as a way of life, and if they choose to follow that right to hunt, at the same time I'm sure they are aware that if any of the species are endangered, such as the polar bear or the narwhal, regulations would be brought in.
.1635
My point is that it's a way of life. Hunting is a way of life for the aboriginal people. The aboriginals who do hunt think of it as a right they've always had, so I get a little worried. If that is the description of the aboriginal people who hunt as a way of life... I get a little worried by my colleagues' ``religious fervour'', or whatever it is.
I say that because I'm a little worried about certain sections of the bill. I want to make sure the people out there understand that when they talk about the St. Lawrence beluga, they're not talking about the beluga that we hunt in the eastern Arctic. I know the St. Lawrence beluga is endangered because of the pollution. And while the beluga up north may be in danger of being susceptible to airborne pollution, to PCBs and what not, it is not in the same category, I think, as the St. Lawrence beluga.
I just want to make sure that whenever the message is going out...in this case the message is that the beluga whale is endangered and I just want to make sure the message is that it's the St. Lawrence beluga, not the eastern Arctic beluga.
It's the same thing for the bowhead whale. The bowhead whale may be considered endangered, but at the same time, a study has not been done to determine just how many bowhead whales there are in the eastern Arctic. Therefore, the designation of endangered should not be there, because if there hasn't been a count, the people don't know exactly how many there are and cannot label them endangered. And the reason it may be endangered is not that the Inuit hunted it almost to extinction. It is because of the whalers who came along and hunted it almost to extinction.
To me, those kinds of differentiations have to be made when people are talking about endangered species like the beluga. I just wanted to make that point to make sure the understanding is out there. When talking about endangered species, if it pertains to animals that aboriginal people hunt, it could mean the same species of animal but they could be in a different area altogether.
Mr. Haber: Just as a point of information, I should mention to you that COSEWIC does designate by population, and for belugas we have designated various populations with different risk factors. So the committee should be aware that there is a very careful vetting of how we look at species and what a species is. A species can be all of the critters or plants over a large area, or it could be some that occur in just a small area. And if these are threatened, but over the main range they are not, then we designate that population with whatever the appropriate designation might be. COSEWIC does clarify that very clearly in their list of Canadian species at risk.
Mr. Anawak: I only mention that because you and I know that, but the average member of the public out there may not know that when you're talking about the St. Lawrence beluga it is not part of the eastern Arctic beluga.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Yes, Ms Maltby.
Ms Maltby: In reference to the bowhead whale, as an example, both the western and eastern populations of that bowhead whale were designated by COSEWIC in 1980 and 1986. It is now 1996, and under the new bill those designations would be reassessed every ten years.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Mr. Anawak, thank you very much.
My question is along similar lines, but it has to do with seals, not whales. We all know that the seal population in two or three of the species is an overpopulation. Yet we have a situation right now on the Magdalen Islands where we're looking at a birth control method in order to control the population of seals, while at the same time we are not allowing a seal hunt. I would like to have the comments of any of those at the table who might want to do that.
.1640
Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis: As you have indicated in your remarks, Madam Chair, it's clear that the criteria needed for listing a species as threatened or endangered wouldn't be met in the case of seals, at least those seal populations you're talking about. There are some populations of seals and some species or subspecies of seals that aren't doing as well as the ones you're describing.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Then we come back to the point about education and whether or not the proper message is being dispersed as to what seal species we are talking about, because we do have the organizations that are still saying there should be no seal hunt when in reality we have a seal species that is now becoming a nuisance.
Mr. Curtis: I don't have any particular comment to make, but I would say my understanding of the whole seal hunt affair was that whatever bans have been put in place weren't put in place because of the endangerment of the seal per se but more the fact that the little ones looked warm and cuddly.
[Translation]
Mrs. Guay: It says in the bill that individual citizens will have the authority to bring an action in cases where individuals of endangered species are killed, harassed, harmed or captured. Will it really happen?
Could you explain the process that has been provided for? Who will make the investigations and how many investigators will there be? What will be the lead time for investigations and a response? When you start such an intervention, it can become onerous.
In other words, if a bulldozer were about to destroy some habitat, could you stop it in time before any damages could happen? It's just an example, but it says what it means.
[English]
Mr. Curtis: Thank you for those questions. You've hit upon a portion of the act that deals with civil enforcement measures or the capacity for individual citizens to bring civil enforcement actions. There are numerous pages in the text of this act that deal with the specifics of how that all works.
I don't pretend to be able to answer all the questions related to that right at this particular point in time, but I think it would be extremely useful if at some point during the hearings the appropriate experts be available to you to answer all the questions you might have on civil enforcement.
Right now the provisions are essentially that any citizen may bring civil enforcement action if they have reason to believe an offence has been committed under the act, that there has been a specific contravention of the act, that the prohibitions or regulations have been violated. Then the responsible minister, which in the definitions under the act includes the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Minister of Canadian Heritage, is then, as appropriate, accountable for conducting an investigation based on the information that the citizen brings forward.
There are certain time lines spelled out clearly in the act as to how long the minister has to respond and the kinds of specifics that need to be in the material that the citizen brings forward. If the responsible minister fails to conduct an investigation, or conducts an investigation that in the opinion of the magistrate was inadequate, then the plaintiff or the citizen can bring civil action through the court and call for an order restraining a particular activity, or a remedial order. In fact, there are other provisions as well. There are numerous safeguards on the use of this particular section.
.1645
In a case where damage is as imminent as you described - a bulldozer about to destroy a nest or something - clearly this provision wouldn't be particularly useful because of the rather arduous requirements to get an investigation considered. But any citizen who has information about an offence that in his opinion is about to be committed is obviously welcome to make that information available. Under normal circumstances, an enforcement officer would look into it, and presumably if the activity was an offence it would be stopped and there wouldn't be the need for this civil enforcement action per se, but the department or the government would act on the information at the outset.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): Thank you very much. Mr. Forseth is next.
Mr. Forseth: Thank you. Looking at page 14 of the bill, under Prohibitions, subclause 31(1) says:
- No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a listed endangered or
threatened species.
- No person shall possess, collect, buy, sell or trade an individual of a listed endangered or
threatened species, or any part or derivative of one.
- No person shall damage or destroy the residence of an individual of a listed endangered or
threatened species.
- other than those mentioned in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), only in so far as individuals of those
species and their habitats are found on federal land.
I anticipate we may have that in British Columbia, because our environment minister says that British Columbia isn't anticipating doing anything about the accord they signed for the immediate future. We may have three or four or five years; I don't know. So we may have a fair amount of provincial land that has no equivalent statute.
Let's say that the act is functioning, everything is triggered, and we have a species that is going to be protected by this act. We look at clause 32:
- No person shall damage or destroy the residence of an individual of a listed endangered or
threatened species.
Mr. Curtis: Insofar as those clauses you're referring to apply, it does not. But there is the capacity under clause 33, and it may apply in the circumstance you describe, where a particular province will also get the COSEWIC recommendation for a listing and they may choose to do nothing about the listing of a species and putting in place the appropriate protective measures.
Clause 33 enables, as a default option, I guess, the federal government to put in place regulations that would have that same effect, to prohibit the wilful taking and killing and harming of such species or the knowing destruction of their habitat.
Mr. Forseth: I'm trying to find some clarity on how this will work. For instance, it says that:
- No person shall kill, harm, harass, capture or take an individual of a listed endangered...species
- and habitats found on federal land. What if the individual is next door on private land? The bird,
or whatever it is, flies over the fence. He's on his own private property, and indeed he does do
something that is harmful to that triggered endangered species. But he's on private property and
there's no provincial legislation.
Mr. Curtis: Well, he used an example of a bird. A bird is a federally protected species, so we can act in the case of the bird. But assume it was some sort of mouse species or something, then you're right, there is a lack of completely compatible -
Mr. Forseth: Are you saying that every flying bird is included under the migratory birds?
Mr. Curtis: No. Most species of birds found in North America are covered by the Migratory Birds Convention, which is a bilateral treaty we have with the United States for the protection of shared species. It covers some 450 species of bird, but there are a number that aren't included. At the time the convention was signed in 1916, the main concern was over-harvesting and market hunting and so on and the -
Mr. Forseth: We're looking at the qualifiers here on page 5, subclause 3(2), and of course the Migratory Birds Convention Act is excluded.
Mr. Curtis: I'll have to confess clause 3 is rather complicated. It takes a lot of reading and re-reading. It's good to have lawyers look at it as well, but subclause (2) basically says that the act applies to species insofar as they occur on federal land, but it also applies to those species listed in paragraph (a) and (b), which are the federal species.
So within the boundaries of a province the act will apply on federal lands. It will apply to federal species within the boundaries of that province. That's what it says.
Mr. Forseth: I'm reading this. It says ``...other than those mentioned in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b)''.
Mr. Curtis: Yes, but if you read it closely, the first subclause 3(1) - we really are into clause-by-clause at this point, Madam Chair - says that the act applies in all of its aspects, essentially throughout Canada, to wildlife species and their habitats, specifically to migratory birds and to the fish and marine mammals protected by the Fisheries Act. Then subclause (2) limits the application of subclause 3(1) above with respect to the application of the act in provinces. It essentially says that it applies on federal lands within the provinces and to federal species everywhere but not to other species on provincial and private lands within the province.
Mr. Forseth: Lynda, you had something to say there.
Ms Maltby: I know it's a little more than just the prohibition clause, but when there is a ``provincial'' species or a mouse or something that occurs on federal land, under this particular legislation it is still required to produce a recovery plan within one year for endangered species and within two years for threatened and extirpated species. To do that you have to bring the province in at that point.
So you have to work together, because publicly it would look really silly if the federal government was producing a recovery plan for those species just applicable to federal lands and not the whole reason...for the biological reason for that species. So the provinces would have to be brought in at least politically, if you like, to be able to help do this.
Mr. Forseth: So in the what-if scenario, then very likely an area of private land that is not a marsh area for migratory birds could be not permitted to proceed and the subdivision could not proceed because the habitat of the endangered species ranged over both private land and federal crown land.
Ms Maltby: The way the process is supposed to work is that the people who are interested in the subdivision, for example, would also be one of the effective parties on the recovery team, in a sense, to try to develop a recovery plan. It may be that there could be modifications to how, where or whatever that subdivision would be. The idea is to at least get all different interest groups involved if they're directly affected by this particular -
.1655
Mr. Forseth: I understand the ideal and intent of goodwill and cooperation, but I want the technicality of the force of the law here, of how the act applies. It was referred to earlier. There's a tremendous difference between drawing a larger circle of love and getting people to cooperate, you might say, and having the legal authority to come down on somebody or saying ``thou shalt not'' by law. I'm trying to find -
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): As was suggested earlier, perhaps we might need to bring in some of the people who are involved in the enforcement of the act to answer those questions. I will allow the witnesses to make an answer if they wish.
Mr. Forseth: This whole question is probably the most fundamental in getting the act accepted across the country.
Mr. Curtis: The intent certainly is that with the provinces, we collectively share concerns about the welfare of species at risk. Through the accord, if the federal government isn't applying its environmental assessment procedures, the expectation is that the appropriate province would. If a species is in trouble, is endangered and is on private lands for which there is a development plan, if the province is doing its job and is concerned about the application of its provisions for protecting that species - including the measures that are available to it under their own environmental assessment processes - then it would be quite feasible to imagine that the development could be stopped in order to protect the species. We would be doing so on the federal lands where it occurred, or in areas of federal responsibility where federal funds and so on were involved, so the hope is that there would be compatible action by the provinces.
Mr. Forseth: Right, and under clause 32 it says: ``No person shall damage or destroy the residence of an individual of a listed endangered...species.'' If a person did that, I take it he or she would then be subject to the penalties of the act. So if there's a rare breed of frog in some ponds that are on private lands but also happen to be of the range of the federal land, maybe that road is not going to get built, that mill is not going to get built, or that subdivision is not going to go ahead. If they do, they would be subject to the penalties of the act. Yes or no?
Mr. Curtis: No, they would not, not specifically.
Mr. Forseth: Because a person shall buy or sell, certainly the buying or selling occurs off federal land. It occurs anywhere, and that person will be penalized under the act. If that occurs outside the federal boundary, then that would apply as well to the actual bulldozer going down a certain swamp and damaging a rare frog's habitat.
Ms Maltby: If it isn't a federal species, it doesn't.
Mr. Forseth: Well, let's say it's one that's listed.
Mr. Charles Dauphiné (International Scientific Authority for Endangered Species/CITES, Canadian Wildlife Service): First of all, the species has to be a federal species. You picked out an example of one that isn't. We have laws now that pertain to the sale of, and to the regulation of all the management of, all federal species. We're looking at things under the Fisheries Act and under the Migratory Birds Convention Act, while all other things are controlled by the provinces. So that wouldn't change. It would still boil down to what the province is willing to do. And under the accord, the provinces are willing to do quite a bit.
Mr. Forseth: I'm not getting my answer, but I will defer to the chair.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): We'll try another time, Mr. Forseth.
Go ahead, Mr. Steckle.
Mr. Steckle: Just for the record, my colleague has reminded me, and perhaps my colleague across the way, that we used the term ``religious''. I used that term in the sense of the zeal and the fervour with which certain people have pursued the protection of certain species - namely the seal, for example - and it had nothing to do with my aboriginal friends. So I want it on the record that I did not refer to my aboriginal friends when I spoke.
.1700
Mr. Forseth: Subclause 2(2) is a good qualifier that no treaty shall be abrogated.
Mr. Steckle: Okay, so we have that on the record now.
I have one generic question. What is the cost of this act?
Mr. Curtis: That's a very good question. We're still in the process of trying to assess exactly what the costs will be. To some extent, it depends ultimately on what provisions are in the final product.
In the anticipation that there aren't wholesale changes, with each new component that is there for civil enforcement, for example, there is a fair burden on government to respond to the request for an investigation. That needs to be addressed and dealt with, because an action can't be brought forward if there isn't an adequate investigation.
There are two sides to this. I think we're looking for assistance from the public in helping with the enforcement of this proposed act. At the same time, the process that's set up to enable that is somewhat costly in and of itself. So I'm not sure I can give you an exact dollar figure. We've been looking at it within Environment Canada, but it isn't just Environment Canada's costs. It's the costs of other federal departments, and particularly those of a responsible ministry like Fisheries and Oceans, although there are others as well. It is clear, though, that there is no new money available to implement the act. We are therefore relying on reprioritizing and so on in order to implement this.
Mr. Steckle: So I take it this proposed act will be implemented and it will be done with moneys currently within the budget. You would perhaps see moneys if - and I use this as a prime example, if I may - a group like Ducks Unlimited pours tremendous amounts of dollars into an agency to enhance the well-being of wildlife. Might it also be that we might see these same people, or agencies such as Ducks Unlimited, come to the rescue of this act in some way, shape or form? Or am I dreaming in technicolour on this one?
Mr. Curtis: I hope you're not, because that is in fact one of the clear objectives. In that long introductory remark I made, I spoke to the need for productive partnerships in order to achieve the objectives of this bill. It's quite clear the federal government cannot do this on its own. We need to be working with our provincial colleagues, with the municipalities, with private citizens, with corporations, and so on. There is a great deal of public interest in doing the right thing for endangered species, so I think the prospects of mobilizing the resources should be very good on this, whether it's dollars or in-kind contributions. There are specific provisions here and there in the bill to enable cost recovery and so on, but that will only deal with a certain proportion of the cost.
So yes, we're very much looking for the kinds of partnership arrangements you've alluded to, and of the sort that we've already had in things like the North American waterfowl management plan, where we have very large amounts of dollars available to us.
Mr. Haber: On a much smaller scale, and not in dealing with the bigger issue of enforcement, which is probably much more costly, we already have matching funding arrangements with national environmental organizations to help to fund status reports. We also have them with provincial conservation data centres that we work with cooperatively to produce status reports. That has worked very well, but it is, of course, at the relatively low end of this whole budgetary exercise.
Mr. Dauphiné: I would like to make a comment that basically alludes to points that several people have made, including you, sir. Those points pertain to whether or not the bill might be influenced by people who have a religious or very zealous fervour and wish to see things listed or allege that things are endangered, and to whether or not the bill might be abused and so on. I'd like to point out that the bill can be used to demonstrate that species are not endangered just as well as it can be used to demonstrate that they are, and I'll give you a case in point.
.1705
COSEWIC is now about to investigate the American black bear, which is a species we feel is common in Canada. It's looking at this species, which we don't think is endangered, simply because a lot of public concern has been expressed about the fact that because of an emerging trade in bear gall bladders and so on, as you've probably read about, the bear might actually be threatened.
We've decided to run it through the COSEWIC system to see where it ends up, and we will see. If it is found that the black bear is not at risk, then that is also published, just as clearly as is our list of species that are. That will more or less lay the matter to rest, because COSEWIC has provided an objective, scientific forum that is at arm's length from governments to analyse the situation and to give us some advice.
I imagine that feature will remain and be reinforced by the proposed act.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I have one short question. As you can see, there are still a lot of questions in this committee and we'll probably have these witnesses who are before us today back on another occasion. I'm just wondering how this bill will be impacted by the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, or even the reverse of that.
Mr. Curtis: A specific portion of the bill addresses that. It's clause 49, on project review.
Essentially the bill will rely on the existing provisions of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act to undertake assessments where a listed species might be under consideration. There are some additional requirements about notification, so if a particular minister, say the Minister of Transport, is conducting an environmental assessment of a project under his or her authority there will be a requirement to notify the responsible minister that such an investigation is under way.
The presence of a species in and of itself will not, as presented here, constitute a new trigger for the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It is certainly anticipated that the permits and agreements referred to in clauses 46 and 47 would be subject to the permitting requirements under CEAA and therefore would be subject to environmental assessments. So that would be a bit of a new trigger, but that can be handled fairly readily.
There's also provision for (a), relating to activities outside of Canada. The Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is still being resolved in those areas. When it is, and in the way it is, the provisions of this bill will be dependent on the eventual resolution of those questions under CEAA.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): I want to thank you and the colleagues who are with you today.
Mr. Curtis: It has been our pleasure.
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Payne): The meeting stands adjourned.